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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description reinforces this by framing the tool as a calculator rather than a mutator. It adds the useful rule of thumb 'rather than estimating values manually,' but never indicates what the response actually contains despite there being no output schema.

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 purpose and the when-to-use list, then input guidance, then the exclusion — a logical order. It is somewhat list-heavy and could trim the enumeration of question types, but every sentence contributes.

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?

For a read-only calculator with five well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, triggering conditions, required inputs and exclusions. The main residual gap is the absence of any indication of the returned values or their units, which the agent must infer from the enumerated questions.

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 baseline is 3; the schema already documents units (inches, DPI, LPI), ranges and defaults. The description only restates optionality ('include printer DPI, lens LPI, or desired view count when known') without adding syntax or interaction semantics beyond what the schema says.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Calculate technical print parameters for a specific lenticular print') and immediately enumerates the concrete question types it answers (pixel counts, resolution, output file size, views per lens period, feasibility, rotation angle). This is clearly distinct from siblings like get_print_quote or generate_pitch_test_chart.

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 when-to-use is given via a list of user question types, plus practical guidance on which inputs to supply. It also states when NOT to use it ('Do not use it for LPI calibration or pricing'), routing the agent to the calibration and pricing sibling tools.

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