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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral fact that the returned specs feed directly into image-generation prompts and that artwork_rules should be followed — a real workflow constraint. Beyond that it says nothing about defaults resolution or what happens with an unsupported size, so it only modestly exceeds the annotation baseline.

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 purpose and return contents are front-loaded in the first clause, and the second sentence is a tight imperative telling the agent when to call it and what to do next. The long parenthetical enumerating every size duplicates the schema and is the one place wording does not fully earn 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the returned fields (trim size, bleed, safe zone, ideal pixel size, aspect ratio), which is exactly the compensation needed. For a simple two-parameter lookup with full annotation coverage, the only missing piece is how defaults and invalid sizes are handled.

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% and both parameters are fully documented with enums and per-product size defaults, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description largely restates the same product and size lists (2x2 to 5x5, 3x2/4x2/4x3/6x4) rather than adding meaning beyond them. Baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Print specs for Bottle Your Brand custom labels and stickers") and enumerates the product families covered (wine, beer, water, dropper, square, rectangle). It also states what each spec contains (trim size, bleed, safe zone, pixel size, aspect ratio), so the agent knows exactly what it will get. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_sticker_guidance, which is the one plausible overlap.

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?

It gives a clear trigger: "Use it before generating or designing label artwork." That places the tool in the workflow and implicitly precedes order_label_artwork/upload_label_artwork. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative (e.g., get_sticker_guidance for sticker-specific questions), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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