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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds important context beyond that: it requires an identity token, only returns artwork owned by the customer, returns view links, and triggers an email with a 6-digit code when no token is supplied, returning a need_verification status with a verificationId.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and usage triggers, then the required auth flow. It is somewhat repetitive, repeating the email/token requirement and the verification consequence, but the repetition is not severe enough to obscure the structure.

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?

Given the tool's complexity—external email side effect, identity verification state machine, and no output schema—the description explains the full flow, return links, and failure status. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and handle the verification step.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents email, order, and token. The description reinforces the token/email/order relationship but adds little per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema descriptions already provide. The baseline of 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: show print-ready artwork files from a past order. The scope is narrowed to a verified customer and 'the actual files that went to print', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling artwork tools like vivid_artwork or vivid_check_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?

Explicitly names when to use it ('what artwork did I print', before confirming a reorder) and describes the alternative path when no token exists, including calling vivid_identity_verify first. The verification workflow and the condition that nothing is shown before authentication are fully spelled out.

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