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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context with 'browser-based' and 'without Adobe Illustrator', which hints at the environment and accessibility. However, it does not disclose potential limitations, such as file size constraints, rendering fidelity, or data handling, leaving some behavioral aspects undefined.

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 with a brief parenthetical note. Every word serves a purpose, delivering the essential information without any fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, browser-based preview), the description is sufficiently complete. It covers what the tool does, for which file types, and the key advantage (no Illustrator required). Additional details like file size limits would be nice but are not essential for a basic viewer.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since the description need not explain nonexistent parameters, and the core purpose (previewing) is already clear.

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 uses a specific verb ('Preview') and resource ('.ai/.eps files'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing the vector format and the lack of need for Adobe Illustrator.

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 gives clear context: use when you need to view .ai/.eps files without Adobe Illustrator. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the tool's niche is well-defined and no sibling tool seems to overlap, so the implicit guidance is sufficient.

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