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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld=false/destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the otherwise-unknown interaction model: the result is a card the customer can open rather than plain text, which changes how the agent should present it. It doesn't say what happens if the customer can't open cards or whether the tool returns any text, but the essential behavior is disclosed.

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?

Leads with the action and resource before the enumeration, and the usage rule lands in a second, short clause. The parenthetical glosses make the first sentence long and dense, but every element (tool list, per-tool meaning, routing rule) carries information the agent needs to choose a value.

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?

One required parameter with full schema coverage, an output schema handling return values, and annotations covering the safety profile — the description fills the remaining gaps: which tools exist, what each solves, and when to prefer a card over a name mention. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100% and the enum is self-describing, so the baseline is 3. The description earns extra credit by explaining the effect of specific values ('measure-by-photo (what size sticker fits a real object)', 'background-remover (… add bleed and a cut path)'), letting the agent pick a value from customer intent, though cutline-generator, resolution-tester, contrast-check, size-guide and design-online get no gloss.

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 (show) and resource (one of Bottle Your Brand's free artwork tools) and names all seven tools with a gloss of what each does, e.g. 'measure-by-photo (what size sticker fits a real object)' and 'background-remover (remove a photo's background and add bleed and a cut path)'. The rendering behavior ('as a card the customer can open') further distinguishes it from siblings like get_sticker_guidance or upload_sticker_artwork.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: 'when one of them solves the problem the customer just described,' and gives a contrast case: 'Use this instead of only mentioning a tool by name.' No sibling tool is named, so the agent must infer the boundary with get_sticker_guidance and upload_sticker_artwork, which keeps it below a 5.

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