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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this well by stating exactly what the tool returns: stitch stats before/after, a density safety verdict with an explicit safe range (+/-15%), and the resized file as base64. It goes beyond a simple action statement, making the tool's observable behavior predictable.

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, tightly packed sentence that leads with the primary action and immediately covers input format, scaling method, and the full relevant output set. No words are wasted and every clause carries essential information.

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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it names the accepted source formats, the operation to perform, and all three pieces of returned information (stats, safety verdict, base64 file). An agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its response.

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 input schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (file_base64 and scale_percent), including the example '80 for -20%'. The description's prose adds no new semantic detail about parameter formats, ranges, or constraints beyond what is already in the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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, actionable verb ('Resize') and a clear resource ('an embroidery design file (PES or DST)') followed by the operation's key dimension (scale percentage). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling tools, which are all generic calculators, and leaves no ambiguity about the tool's domain or function.

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 implicitly conveys when to use it: whenever a PES or DST embroidery file needs its size changed. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, but the context is clear enough that an agent can select it without confusion, especially since none of the sibling tools relate to embroidery resizing.

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