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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavioral context: it is public (no auth implied), nothing is emailed, and the links come straight from the source page. The instruction 'Give the links exactly as returned' usefully constrains how the agent should relay output.

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 action and resource, and no sentence is padding — even the final imperative adds handling value. It is somewhat dense with stacked parentheticals, which slightly hurts scannability but not economy.

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 an output schema present, return format need not be explained, and the description plus schema together tell the agent what the tool returns, why (artwork setup with bleed/safe area), the source of truth, and the one non-obvious handling rule ('give the links exactly as returned'). Nothing needed to invoke it 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%, so both `product` and `size` are already well documented in the schema, including the same '850x2000' example and the per-size filter behavior. The description's mention of 'per size' and the product page adds no detail beyond what the schema provides, so 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 and resource (get official print-ready artwork template download links) plus the source (the product's vividads.com.au product page) and format (PDF/AI, per size). This clearly separates it from siblings like vivid_artwork, vivid_check_artwork, and vivid_upload_artwork.

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 a clear context of use — helping the customer or their designer set up artwork correctly (bleed, safe area, size) — and notes it is public and read-only with nothing emailed, which rules out an email-delivery expectation. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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