BoxTier Basketball Receipt

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

Annotations are all false, so the description must carry behavioral details. It does: it specifies that emblems must be preprocessed into transparent square WebP preserving aspect ratio and text, and it instructs not to guess missing values (asking the user first). These are behavioral constraints not present in the schema. However, it does not mention output behavior (e.g., where the PNG is saved or returned) or any side effects, which are minor given the annotations are all false and the tool is essentially a generation function.

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 paragraph that front-loads the purpose and then provides usage constraints in a logical order. It is concise but includes multiple important conditions (when to use, preprocessing requirement, don't guess, excluded cases). Slightly long but well-structured. No fluff.

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?

The description covers the tool's scope, required inputs, handling of missing values, and exclusion cases. Combined with the rich schema (100% coverage), an agent has enough context to decide when to call this tool and what inputs it needs. It does not explain the output format beyond PNG, but that is implied by the name and the schema covers input details. Overall, context is sufficient.

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 schema already provides 100% description coverage for all 18 parameters, including enum values, defaults, and constraints. The tool description adds little beyond what the schema states, except reiterating that emblem preprocessing should preserve aspect ratio and text (which is already in the schema's emblem description). It does not introduce new meaning for parameters, so it scores a 3 – neutral, not adding significant value beyond schema.

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 specifies the tool's function: creating a BoxTier-style basketball game receipt PNG. It uses a specific verb ('creates'), specifies the exact style (BoxTier), and identifies the artifact (PNG receipt). It also enumerates the required inputs (team names, scores, date, venue, format), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides explicit conditions for use: only when the user requests a BoxTier receipt with all actual values provided, and explicitly forbids guessing missing values, instructing to ask the user first. It also lists situations where the tool should NOT be used (non-basketball games, false records, commercial receipts). This fully satisfies the usage guidelines dimension.

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