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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive call, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the result shape and explicit exclusions ('No designState. updated_at is omitted'), which prevents the agent from expecting those fields.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the resource and its fields come first, then the parameter cue, then the exclusions. 'No designState' is terse to the point of being cryptic but still earns its place by ruling out an expected field.

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 takes on the burden of describing returned fields and omissions. The main remaining gap is default/filter semantics when kind is not supplied, which matters for a listing tool.

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 0% for a single enum parameter, so the description must carry the load. It explains the meaning of the 'shipping_mark' value but leaves 'label' and the omit/default behavior (all profiles? unfiltered?) undefined.

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 ('List print profiles') and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, size, document_kind), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not name the nearest siblings (list_label_templates, list_shipping_mark_templates, list_print_profile_bindings), so differentiation is only partial.

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?

'Pass kind=shipping_mark for carton marks' gives one concrete usage cue for a parameter value, which is better than nothing. But there is no guidance on when to omit kind, what the default listing returns, or why one would pick this over list_shipping_mark_templates.

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