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

Annotations already cover read-only safety, but the description adds substantive behavior: it reads the file, runs the same automatic design checks as the website, stores nothing, and returns an upload link when no file is attached. That is real context beyond structured 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 sentences, trigger front-loaded, every clause carrying information (what it checks, what it does not do, the fallback). No filler or repetition of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Given the read-only annotations plus the description's coverage of inputs, side effects (stores nothing) and the no-file path, an agent has everything needed to call it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents material, model_file and part_description, including the enum values. The description names supported file formats but adds no syntax or format detail 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 specific verb and resource (check a 3D model's printability) and enumerates exactly what it inspects: size, walls, mesh problems and remediation. It also distinguishes itself from siblings with 'It gives no quote,' routing quoting intent to get_print_quote.

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 trigger is explicit: 'Use this when someone attaches an STL, 3MF, STEP or OBJ file and wants to know whether it will 3D print well.' It also states the negative case ('gives no quote') and the no-file fallback behavior, leaving little to inference.

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