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

Annotations only supply openWorldHint, so the description carries the behavioral burden and does it well: it discloses streaming progress, the rate-limit error taxonomy (model_rate_limited vs platform_rate_limited vs request_not_sent), and the per-design fallback_trail with model substitutions. This is rich operational context an agent cannot get from annotations.

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-loads the core capability and keeps the routing constraint early, with dense but useful sentences. It loses a point for the trailing stray artifact '[#d84efc]', which adds no meaning and only noise.

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 does the work of explaining returns ('ready-to-use design(s)'), streaming, and error classes, which is strong. Minor incompleteness remains around several input parameters and any cost or latency expectations for a generative call.

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 only 22% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate and only partly does: it adds meaning for needs_transparency (all-over-print rule), no_fallback (redundant with the schema's own description), and the prompt convention. count, style, source, workspace, verify_text, and garment_type remain undocumented in both places, leaving a real gap.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ('End-to-end apparel design') and immediately states the output ('Returns ready-to-use design(s)'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling upload_design by stating 'This GENERATES new artwork' and routing existing merchant files elsewhere.

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 when-not guidance: use upload_design when the merchant already owns the file and 'do not regenerate their mark', plus the conditional 'Set needs_transparency=false for all-over-print products'. Both conditions name the scenario that selects the behavior.

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