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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: the token must be bound to the customer's email, and artwork is only returned for orders belonging to that customer. It also discloses the return type ('view links to each print layout'), going beyond the safety annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by requirements and return information, then usage triggers. Every sentence contributes unique information without redundancy or filler.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, prerequisites, security constraint, output, and when to use. It is complete for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool, especially with supporting annotations.

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 describes all parameters. The description adds minimal extra semantic value, clarifying that the token proves ownership and the email must match the token, but this largely repeats or slightly reinforces existing schema descriptions. 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?

The description clearly specifies the action ('Show'), the target resource ('PRINT-READY artwork files... for one of their past orders'), and the scope ('VERIFIED customer'). It differentiates from siblings like vivid_check_artwork and vivid_proof_status by emphasizing 'the actual files that went to print' and 'view links to each print layout'.

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 provides explicit usage triggers ('when a customer asks...') and a clear context ('before confirming a reorder'). It also states prerequisites (order number and identity token). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools for related queries, so it falls slightly short of a full 5.

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