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 structurally. The description still adds real context beyond that: it discloses the specific computed values returned, including a quality threshold ("the floor below which it will look soft") and a reading-distance-dependent QR constraint. It stops short of describing formats or units for those values.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then a single sentence enumerating outputs. No filler, and every clause contributes; the line breaks aid scanning even if the enumeration sentence is dense.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly enumerates return values, which is the right move. But it omits the acceptable format for the single required input and gives no units or structure for the returned dimensions, so for a tool whose entire value is the returned plan it is adequate rather than complete.

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?

There is one parameter, "size", with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the burden. "For this print size" hints that size designates a print format, but it never states the accepted format, units, or whether named sizes from list_print_sizes are expected, so the gap is only partially compensated.

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 names a specific verb (plan) and resource (artwork for a print size) and enumerates the concrete outputs — pixel dimensions, softness floor, proportions, minimum QR size, and a prompt line. It is clear what the tool produces, though the phrasing "what to ask an image model for" is slightly oblique and it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like check_print_file or list_print_sizes.

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?

It supplies a contextual trigger — "before generating artwork for this print size" — which implies the pre-generation planning use case. However, it names no alternatives, no exclusions, and does not say whether the input size must come from list_print_sizes, leaving the agent to infer routing among the siblings.

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