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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context by stating values are derived from formulas rather than estimated, which tells the agent results are deterministic and reproducible. It does not discuss bounds handling or output shape, but the annotations carry most of that burden.

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 output enumeration comes first, then the usage trigger, then scope — a sensible front-loading for a numerical tool. The middle sentence is somewhat dense with examples, but every clause maps to a distinct capability or entry point, so little is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what comes back — and it does, listing all five computed values. Combined with the usage triggers and scope boundaries, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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 each parameter's meaning is already documented. The description still adds selection guidance the schema lacks: width/height are the base inputs and DPI, LPI, or view count are supplied "when known," signaling that lpi, viewCount, and resolution are optional. The 720 DPI default is left to the schema, which is acceptable.

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?

Specific verb plus resource ("calculate technical print parameters for a specific lenticular print") followed by an enumerated list of the exact values returned: pixel size, uncompressed file size, views per lens period, feasibility, rotation angle. This is far beyond restating the title and lets an agent recognize the tool without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit trigger conditions are given as example user questions ("how many pixels are needed, what resolution to use, how many views fit, what rotation angle"), plus the inputs to supply. The scope sentence excludes calibration charts and price quotes, which routes the agent to generate_pitch_test_chart and get_print_quote respectively.

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