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

The readOnlyHint annotation already marks the operation safe, and the description goes further by disclosing access-control rules, expiry behavior ('A pending handoff past its expiry reports as expired'), and the relation to print jobs. It also notes the required scope prints:read, which is valuable auth context beyond the annotation.

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 description is front-loaded with the purpose, followed by tight, information-dense sentences covering access control, expiry, confirmation follow-up, parameters, returns, and required scope. Every sentence contributes unique operational detail, and there is no 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?

With no output schema, the description explicitly lists both possible return shapes and the required scope. It also covers authorization, lifecycle transitions (expired, confirmed), and offers a pointer to the next tool, making the description self-sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for handoff_id, including the omit-to-list behavior. The description adds the return shape (`{ ok, handoff }` or `{ ok, count, handoffs }`) and the 'newest first' ordering, which are not present in the schema and meaningfully clarify what happens when the parameter is omitted.

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 and resource: 'Read one staged handoff by id, or list the handoffs staged in your name.' It clearly distinguishes this from the related getter ic_prints_get by stating that once confirmed, print_job_id should be followed with ic_prints_get.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool (read by id or list by omitting the id) and provides an alternative (`Once confirmed, print_job_id is the pj_ id to follow with ic_prints_get`). It also states when not to use it by limiting readability to the two parties and noting operators/farm managers cannot read handoffs.

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