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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the 120 DPI hard gate and the behavior when width/height are omitted: suitability cannot be verified. However, it leaves important behavior undisclosed, such as whether this is an asynchronous background task, whether it has side effects, and what the report returns.

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?

Two short, dense sentences with no fluff. The core rule is front-loaded, and the omit-instruction is concise but meaningful. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must compensate. It does not explain what the returned report contains, how the task is executed, or how it relates to 'check_photo_compatibility'. For a task-named tool with up to four parameters, these are notable gaps.

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 description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that width/height should be omitted to signal that verification is impossible without dimensions, giving the agent actionable parameter-level knowledge not available from the schema alone.

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 names the resource (photo compatibility) and the specific action (resolution check) against a concrete, meaningful rule: the print-contract 120 DPI hard gate used by upload. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate this from the sibling tool 'check_photo_compatibility', other than the 'Task-based' prefix.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this task variant versus the non-task sibling 'check_photo_compatibility', nor does it state when this tool is preferred. 'Used by upload' provides some context, and the omit-width/height instruction explains input behavior, but not tool selection.

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