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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description adds genuinely new context: no API key is needed and the server has no design-generation tool, so the agent must build the artwork with its own tools. It does not cover response size or any limits, but the key behavioral surprise (no generation capability) is disclosed.

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 content is front-loaded with the payload description, then the workflow, then parameter meaning. It is dense and slightly long-winded in places, but nearly every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe return values, and it does: geometry data, plain guidelines, expected format, example templates, and the logo ask. Combined with the workflow guidance, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: shape selects round or square geometry, and chosenExampleRef carries the house example direction the person picked from examples this tool returns. That clarifies the provenance and purpose of the reference parameter beyond the schema text.

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 specific verb and resource ('The production artwork spec for the chosen shape') and enumerates the payload: 106 mm artboard, cut, bleed, safe-zone geometry as millimetre data, plain guidelines, expected return format, house template examples, and the optional logo ask. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_discovery and submit_artwork.

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?

It gives an explicit sequence: choose the shape first, call get_discovery when the person has not chosen yet, and submit_artwork once the artwork file exists. Both the when-to-use and the alternatives are named with their triggering conditions.

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