Check virtual tour

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description's real added value is the asynchronous lifecycle disclosure (status can be "processing", "ready" or "failed", with reason) plus the polling directive. It does not mention rate limits or how long processing typically takes, but the async behavior is clearly signposted.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the return payload comes first, the polling trigger second. The trailing "Read-only." is redundant with readOnlyHint and does not fully earn its place, keeping it just under a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and their meaning, and it explains the async status lifecycle the agent must handle. Nothing needed to call a single-parameter read tool correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter (tourId), whose provenance is already documented in the schema ("Id from pedra_create_virtual_tour or pedra_list_virtual_tours"). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Get) and resource (virtual tour) and enumerates the payload the agent receives: status with reason, tourUrl, embedCode iframe, scenes and navigation links. This clearly separates it from siblings like pedra_list_virtual_tours and pedra_update_virtual_tour.

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?

"Poll this after pedra_create_virtual_tour or pedra_add_virtual_tour_scenes" gives explicit when-to-use context and names the triggering siblings. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g., use list_virtual_tours for discovery), so it is not a full 5.

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