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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior not in the annotations: output must be surfaced to a human and a choice collected before proceeding — a workflow constraint an agent would otherwise miss. It stops short of describing the return shape, but an output schema exists to cover that.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the highest-value token ('START HERE'), then the content inventory, then the required next action. Every clause carries operational information; nothing is padding.

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?

Zero params, full annotation coverage, and an output schema that carries the return structure — so the description only needs routing and workflow guidance, which it delivers. Nothing an agent needs to call this 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed before fetching the menu.

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 resource (the menu of generation choices) and enumerates its contents — placements, products, backgrounds, engines+costs — plus its role as the entry point. The contrast with generate_custom_print makes it distinguishable from the sibling that actually produces the print.

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?

Explicit 'START HERE' trigger, an explicit next step (present to the human, ask at minimum for PLACEMENT and PRODUCT), and an explicit named successor tool (generate_custom_print). Nothing about when to call this versus alternatives is left to inference.

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