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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the set is the one accepted by `size`, with dimensions returned; it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or how many entries exist.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause (what it lists, what it's for, what it includes) earns its place.

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 the description needn't document return values, and a zero-param read-only lookup needs little more. It is essentially complete, with only ordering/volume behavior left unstated.

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?

Zero input parameters, so the schema baseline is 4. The description still adds semantic value by tying the returned set to the `size` argument used by related tools, clarifying what the enumeration is for.

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 ('list') and resource ('named print sizes') plus what is returned (their dimensions), so the agent knows this is a reference lookup. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from check_print_file/fix_print_file/plan_artwork, but the enumeration semantic is clearly different from those action verbs.

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 phrase 'the named print sizes `size` accepts' implies usage — call this to discover valid values for the `size` argument used elsewhere — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative. Usage is left to inference.

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