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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — it doesn't explain what extraction destroys or overwrites (e.g., session/design content), that the tool can fetch public URLs, or what the result looks like, despite this being a destructive, non-idempotent operation.

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 with no padding. The phrase 'Use the existing extraction tool' is mildly circular given the tool is itself the extraction tool, but it costs little.

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 destructive, open-world, non-idempotent tool with a large nested options object and no output schema, the description is too thin. It never explains what is modified or lost during extraction, how the result is delivered, or how the many options interact — information an agent needs before invoking a destructive operation.

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%, with subject, sessionToken, requestId, and the nested options object all documented in the schema. The description's 'supplied garment mockup' hints at the subject/asset relationship but adds no syntax or semantics 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 clear verb and resource: 'recover printable artwork from a supplied garment mockup.' An agent can tell it is an extraction/recovery operation on mockup images. However, it does not distinguish itself from plausible siblings like generate_artwork, remove_background, or sticker_cutout, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 sentence only says to 'use the existing extraction tool'; there is no when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, no prerequisites beyond the implied session, and no exclusion of sibling tools. An agent has no routing signal for choosing extract_artwork over generate_artwork or remove_background.

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