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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds context by noting 'Browser-based tool', hinting at client-side processing, but does not explain what happens to the PDF (e.g., modified in place, downloaded) or any limitations. This is a minimal but non-zero disclosure.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence that clearly conveys the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, and the browser-based note adds context without clutter.

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 simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It identifies the action and resource. A bit more detail on the output or whether it creates a new file would improve completeness, but the current description is adequate for its low complexity.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. Per the rubric, 0 params yields a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the schema coverage is vacuous 100%.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Apply Japanese hanko stamps to PDF documents.' The verb 'Apply' and resource 'PDF documents' are specific, and the qualifier 'Japanese hanko stamps' differentiates it from sibling tools like pdf-sign or stamp-maker.

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 description implies usage context (applying hanko stamps to PDFs) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pdf-sign or stamp-maker. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, so guidance is only implicit.

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