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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, but the description adds critical behavior beyond that: it is advisory-only, never blocks anything, and the agent must explicitly allow the customer to proceed with the file as-is. It also discloses that a free digital proof is provided separately, which manages expectations about order flow.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence earns its place: it explains what the tool checks, what output to expect, the advisory nature, and how to handle the result. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool has no output schema, but the description adequately covers what gets reported (size, bleed, colour, fonts, resolution) and that each issue includes a plain-English fix. The advisory-only behavior and the mention of the proof workflow complete the picture for an agent to use the tool correctly in the ordering flow.

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 input schema already provides 100% descriptive coverage of all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level details; it only reinforces that the file is a PDF and that ordered size is checked, which is already expressed in the schema. No extra semantic value beyond schema coverage.

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?

The description states a specific action ('Check'), a specific resource ('customer's artwork PDF'), and a clear goal ('print-ready BEFORE they order'). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by naming Vivid's production preflight engine and listing the exact checks (bleed, colour, fonts, resolution) that no other sibling tool mentions.

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?

The description explicitly says to use the tool 'BEFORE they order', which is clear timing guidance. It also states what to do with the results — that it is 'ADVISORY ONLY', never blocks, and that if the customer is happy to proceed, the agent should 'say so explicitly'. This provides practical when-to, when-not-to, and how-to-respond guidance.

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