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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely new context: results are advisory and never block an order, customer acceptance of the file is always allowed, and every order still gets a free digital proof. This materially shapes how an agent should act on the 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 core action and structured logically, with the advisory constraint given prominence. The closing sentence about the free digital proof is slightly tangential to a preflight checker, keeping it just short of ideal.

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 well by enumerating exactly what the report contains (size vs ordered size, bleed, RGB/CMYK, font embedding, effective resolution, each with a plain-English fix). An agent knows what it will get back and how to treat it.

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 the schema already documents file_url, width_mm, and height_mm. The description's list of reported checks (size vs ordered, bleed, colour, fonts, resolution) describes outputs rather than clarifying the parameters, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Check whether a customer's artwork PDF is print-ready') and adds scope ('powered by Vivid's own production preflight engine'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like vivid_upload_artwork, vivid_artwork, and vivid_proof_status.

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 timing ('BEFORE they order') and a strong behavioral directive ('ADVISORY ONLY: it never blocks anything... say so explicitly'). It does not name or route to any alternative sibling, but the when-to-use context is otherwise very clear.

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