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

Annotations already declare this is a non-idempotent write, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: how output is rendered (US Letter, serif, black and white), that page count is computed, and hard input constraints (plain text only, blank-line paragraph separation). This meaningfully exceeds the structured metadata.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then packs rendering behavior and input constraints into three tight sentences with no filler. Slightly awkward phrasing ('Have It Printed typesets it') but structurally sound.

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 description covers rendering, formatting constraints, and page counting, but leaves gaps for a tool with no output schema: it doesn't state what is returned or explain the required job_handle's origin (presumably from hip_create_job). Adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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 75%, with text/title/copies documented in the schema. The description adds value by specifying the required text format ('separate paragraphs with a blank line; no images, tables or formatting'), which goes beyond the schema's 'exactly as it should read'. job_handle remains undocumented in both places, capping the score.

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 ('Add a letter or document whose text you wrote') and clarifies that the text is authored by the user, distinguishing it from upload-style siblings. It does not explicitly name how it differs from other hip_* tools, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 one concrete usage rule ('Call once per document'), which implies the tool is invoked repeatedly for multi-document jobs. However, it never says when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., uploading a file) or where the required job_handle comes from.

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