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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioural context those annotations cannot: it discloses the shape of the return value (checks grouped by document setup, color, images, type, finishing files, export and delivery) and flags that items are common practice rather than authoritative — an important reliability disclosure for a tool with 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by parameter guidance and then return shape. The long enum parentheticals and finish list are load-bearing because the schema does not enumerate those values; nothing is decorative.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so with concrete group names and a note that each check includes figures to confirm with the printer. All three parameters are covered, and the authority caveat closes the main remaining ambiguity about trusting the output.

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 nominally 100%, but the schema's own strings are bare ('Color setup', 'Product', 'Comma-separated finishes'). The description compensates by enumerating every allowed product and colour value and by spelling out the full set of finish tokens, which the schema does not list at all — genuine added meaning beyond the structured data.

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 ('Get a prepress checklist') and immediately scopes it with the three dimensions it varies along (product, colour, finishes). The enumerated product vocabulary makes it clearly distinct from neighbouring calculators such as calc_print_spec, calc_print_resolution and plan_imposition without needing to name them.

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?

Gives clear context for use: this is the prepress pre-flight checklist generator, driven by product/colour/finishes. It adds a useful caveat ('the printer's own spec sheet always wins') but never states when to prefer a sibling tool or what to do if the job is not print-related, so no explicit exclusions or alternatives are offered.

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