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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral insight beyond annotations: it explicitly states that sections that cannot be assessed are reported as such and excluded from the score, which is a transparency guarantee about the tool's honesty. This goes beyond mere read-only status and adds value.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core purpose and scope efficiently. It lists the sections but avoids excessive detail. While it is somewhat dense, it is not verbose and contains no filler. It earns a 4 for being concise and well-structured, though a slight break-down could improve readability.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description does a good job of explaining what the agent will receive: a health report with sectioned findings and a score, including the caveat about unassessed sections. It does not detail the exact score scale or output format, but the description covers the essential information needed to invoke the tool and interpret its result. Given the complexity, it is reasonably complete.

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?

All parameters have descriptions in the input schema (coverage 100%), so the schema documents them fully. The description mentions 'size/DPI' which maps to dpmm, width_in, and height_in, but does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond what the schema provides. Thus, it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding significant extra semantics.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it produces a full health report for a ZPL label, listing specific sections (syntax, size/DPI, orientation, barcodes, fonts, graphics memory, job behaviour) and an honest score. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like zpl_validate (validation) and zpl_preview (rendering), as it focuses on comprehensive analysis.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool (to get a health report for ZPL code) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. Since the purpose is unambiguous and distinct among siblings, it earns a 4 for clear context without exclusions.

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