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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful context about what the images are (source-file renders, not product screenshots), but says nothing about return format (URLs vs base64), pagination behavior, or failure modes for a bad slug. This is modest added value over structured fields, fitting a 3.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, artifact nature, and use case, in that order. The core verb and resource are front-loaded with no preamble or filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry return-value context, yet it never explains how the images come back (URLs, base64, metadata) or how the limit interacts with results. For a simple 2-parameter getter the gap is not fatal, but it leaves a meaningful unknown for an image-retrieval tool.

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 both slug and limit are already documented in the schema, including the default of 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as slug format or pagination semantics. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema carries the full parameter burden.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: retrieving screen images rendered from an EpicPxls item source file (Figma or PSD). It further clarifies the artifact type (full app screen at native resolution, not a shipped-product screenshot), which conceptually separates it from get_item and get_free_assets. However, it does not name or contrast against any sibling tool, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 states an explicit use case: "Use these as visual reference when designing an interface." That gives a clear context for invoking the tool. It stops short of exclusions or naming alternatives (e.g., extract_palette or find_fonts for non-visual needs), so a 4 is appropriate rather than a 5.

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