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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the risk profile is known from structured data. The description adds useful context — permission requirement, the 50-line cap, and the preference for a signed download_url — but never explains what makes the call destructive (e.g., that it generates/overwrites a PDF artifact) or what repeated invocations produce.

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?

Five short sentences with the access prerequisite and the core output behavior front-loaded; little waste. The trailing download_url remark is slightly displaced from the output discussion but still earns its place.

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 does well to mention the PDF result and the download_url return path. But for a destructive, non-idempotent tool with zero schema documentation, gaps remain around the quality parameter's effect and the nature of the side effect.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It clarifies profile_id's optionality and its dependency on a customer default, and implies order_id scopes the sales order, but the 'quality' enum (draft/good/professional/high) is never mentioned or explained anywhere, leaving a third of the parameters opaque.

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 — 'Print one shipping-mark page per sales-order line in a single PDF' — which is far more precise than the title. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling print_shipping_mark (singular), so an agent must infer the difference from the plural 'per sales-order line' wording.

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 states a prerequisite ('Requires print.org'), a hard limit (max 50 lines), and a conditional rule for profile_id. However, it never says when to choose this over the near-identical sibling print_shipping_mark, which is the most likely routing ambiguity for an agent.

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