SafeResize

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds a genuinely useful trait beyond them: the check is performed locally 'without sending the file', so the agent knows no upload or external call occurs. It does not say what verdict/format comes back, which is left implied.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the usage condition second; every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 and no annotations about results, the description should at least indicate the shape of the answer (compliant/non-compliant, offending rule). It covers inputs well but leaves the return value entirely unstated.

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 description coverage is 60% (width and height have none), so the description meaningfully maps its concepts to parameters: 'size in bytes' -> file_size_bytes, 'pixels' -> width/height, 'type' -> format. It adds this conceptual mapping but no format or unit guidance, so it neither fully compensates nor is redundant.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: check a file's size/pixels/type against a website's upload rules, plus the key qualifier 'without sending the file'. It is clearly distinct from plain rule-fetchers like get_photo_requirements, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the closer sibling interpret_upload_rules.

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?

'Use when you already know the numbers (e.g. from the file's properties)' is an explicit precondition that tells the agent exactly when this tool applies. It stops short of naming the alternative to use when the numbers are unknown, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true) and the closed-corpus nature (openWorldHint=false); the description usefully reinforces this by stating the list is a fixed, verified set of 83 documents and that results carry a document_id for chaining. It does not discuss pagination behavior or what happens on zero matches, so it stops short of a 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?

A single tightly written sentence that front-loads the operation and corpus, then gives the matching keys, examples, and return shape. No filler or redundancy.

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 correctly discloses the return shape (matching documents plus document_id). It leaves minor gaps: no explicit pointer to get_photo_requirements for full requirements, and no note on behavior when nothing matches.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including examples for query and the default/max for limit. The description's 'by country, document or form name' largely restates the schema, adding little beyond confirming query is free-text, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search ... list of 83 passport and visa photo documents') plus exact lookup keys (country, document, form name) and concrete example queries. The detail that it 'returns matching documents with their document_id' signals search-then-fetch semantics, which distinguishes it from an id-based sibling like get_photo_requirements.

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 clear context for when to call it (free-text lookup by country, document, or form name) and rich examples ('US visa', 'DS-160', 'Schengen', 'India OCI', 'Dubai'). It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, e.g. fetching details by a known document_id.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the description is free to add value elsewhere, and it does: it discloses the full set of returned fields, that a freshness date ('the date SafeResize checked it') is included, and a required user-facing disclaimer. It does not discuss rate limits or auth, but for a safe local read the added output context is meaningful.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the resource ('Official photo rules for one document') and then enumerates the payload, followed by one actionable instruction. The enumerated list is long but each item carries information; 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 correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and it adds the confirm-on-official-source obligation. For a single-parameter read tool this is close to complete; only the upstream dependency on find_photo_requirements is left to the schema rather than stated in prose.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single document_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including example values and its origin (find_photo_requirements). The description adds no parameter-level detail of its own, 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?

The description gives a clear verb+resource ('Official photo rules for one document') and enumerates exactly what comes back, so the agent knows precisely what this tool returns. It does not explicitly name the sibling it depends on (find_photo_requirements), though the input schema carries that routing, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer it should call this when it needs photo rules for a specific document ID. The only explicit guidance is a downstream instruction to tell the user to confirm on the official source. No when-not-to-use or alternative tools (find_photo_requirements, interpret_upload_rules) are named in the description itself.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond that: it explains the byte-range ambiguity handling (1,000 vs 1,024 bytes per KB) and that it also returns the SafeResize tool that fixes the file, which tells the agent this is pure computation plus a recommendation step.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that moves from the input to the enumerated outputs with no filler. It is dense but readable; the only minor cost is that the list of outputs makes it long.

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 compensates by enumerating what comes back (KB limits, byte range, pixels, file type, fix tool). That is sufficient for calling it correctly, though it references a 'SafeResize tool' that is not among the listed siblings, which could cause slight ambiguity about follow-up routing.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reiterates that the input is the rules as the website writes them, matching the schema text, but adds no format caveats or examples beyond what the schema already documents.

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 names a concrete verb (turn/interpret), the input artifact (the upload rules a website shows) and the concrete outputs (KB limits, byte range, pixels, file type). It is clearly distinct from the sibling requirements-lookup tools, though it never names an alternative to differentiate against explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the tool to call when it has raw rule text and needs numeric constraints. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison against check_file_numbers/find_photo_requirements, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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