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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description is not obliged to restate safety. It does add real value beyond them: the result payload (type id, default size in mm), the scale of the die-code catalog (~180 FEFCO plus ECMA), and the actionable link that starts a Drint design on that die.

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 core statement is front-loaded, but the first sentence is overstuffed with a fourteen-item parenthetical catalog list that pads length. It earns partial credit because those keywords help match user vocabulary, yet the sentence sprawls well past what an agent needs to select the tool.

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 two-optional-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential unknowns: what is returned (ids, sizes in mm), what the catalog contains (FEFCO/ECMA codes), and that results carry a design-start link. Only the absence of any mention of result limits or truncation on a ~180+ item catalog keeps it from a 5.

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. The description goes beyond the schema by giving concrete query strings agents and users actually type ('0201', 'reverse tuck', 'crash lock', 'hộp nắp gài', 'bag'), which clarifies that code lookup and natural-language structure search are the same field.

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 states a specific verb and resource — listing the packaging structures Drint produces as print-ready dielines — and enumerates the catalog domain (FEFCO, ECMA, boxes, bags, pouches, labels). It is clearly a catalog list/search rather than a fetch-one or create operation, though it never names siblings like get_dieline or make_dieline to sharpen the distinction.

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: 'Optional query: a code or a few words' tells the agent the tool doubles as a search, and the empty-query behavior (return everything) is implied by the schema. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_dieline for a single lookup or make_dieline to actually create one.

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