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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description only needs to add behavior beyond that — and it does, disclosing that unassessable sections self-report and are excluded from the score, which shapes how an agent should interpret the result. It stops short of rate limits or failure modes, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool produces and followed by the disambiguation clause. The parenthetical section list is dense but every item informs interpretation of the score.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so: score range, sectioned findings, and the exclusion rule for unassessable sections. An agent knows before calling what it will get back and how to explain it.

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 schema already explains each parameter including dpmm's scoring role and the width/height reporting role. The description echoes 'size/DPI' and 'orientation' but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 — a human-readable health report for a ZPL label — plus the concrete output (0-100 score, sectioned findings). It clearly separates itself from the validation siblings by naming zpl_validate as the different tool.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('review or explain a label to a person') and when-not ('for a quick pass/fail check while editing, use zpl_validate instead'), naming the alternative tool directly. Nothing is left to inference.

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