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

The description goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint) by detailing the exact checks performed: naive CMYK conversion with no color management, TAC limits with conventions for coated/uncoated/newsprint (and that the printer's figure wins), rich black vs flat K, 400% registration black, gamut warnings, spot plate addition, and overprint notes. This provides rich behavioral context that helps the agent understand the tool's output and limitations.

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 then provides necessary details in a single dense sentence. While every clause earns its place, the structure could be improved with bullet points or shorter sentences for readability. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 there is no output schema, the description effectively enumerates what the tool reports (mode, TAC, rich black, etc.), making it complete for an agent to understand the scope. Combined with the detailed input explanation and the annotations covering safety, the definition provides all needed context to invoke the tool 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?

Although the schema has 100% description coverage, the schema descriptions are minimal ('One color per line', 'Paper stock', 'Smallest black text in pt'). The tool description adds crucial syntax details for the colors parameter (hex, rgb, cmyk, spot names), explains the role of stock in setting the TAC limit, and clarifies that smallest_text_pt is for the smallest black text. This significantly enriches the parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Check colors for print.' It tells the agent exactly what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate from related siblings like approx_print_colour, chart_colour_check, or print_file_checklist, which also deal with color and print checks.

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?

Usage is implied by the context 'for print' and the detailed input formats, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The agent must infer from the purpose that this is for print color mode checking, but no exclusions or alternative routing are mentioned.

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