Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations it discloses accepted formats (JPEG/PNG/WebP up to 40 MB), that the image is stored privately, that the returned status is wacht_op_upload when no image is supplied, that small images only produce a print_quality warning and never a rejection, and that identical image plus identical settings yield the same design_id (concrete support for idempotentHint). These are exactly the facts an agent needs before invoking.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the primary action, then the no-image fallback, then constraints and follow-up tools. Dense but every sentence carries operational information; only the parenthetical 'tot dezelfde design_id' style tail slightly pads the end.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, yet the description still explains return values (design_id, status, upload_url, rooms, print_quality) and what to do with them. For a 5-parameter creation tool with nested image/wall objects, nothing essential is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry the parameters, and it does: image contents, wall_cm in cm, room as a value taken from rooms in a prior response, and furniture=false meaning an empty room. However, it says material is 'altijd vlies' while the schema enum offers vlies and vinyl, leaving a real ambiguity about whether the material parameter is meaningful.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: make wallpaper from an image the customer uploaded or created in this conversation, with wall dimensions in cm. This implicitly separates it from the catalog-based sibling start_wallpaper_design; it does not name that sibling explicitly, so a 4 rather than 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit branching: pass image when a file is available, call without image otherwise, then hand the upload_url (24h valid) to the customer and call get_wallpaper_design with the returned design_id once uploaded. It also explains the room and furniture switches and names the downstream tools (update_wallpaper_design, render_wallpaper_preview, get_wallpaper_quote, get_wallpaper_handoff, get_wallpaper_checkout_link).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.