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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to reiterate safety. It adds 'FREE. (FREE)' as a cost note but does not disclose any other behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. The description is consistent with annotations, no contradiction.

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 sentence that covers the main features, followed by a repetitive 'FREE. (FREE)'. This is efficient but slightly redundant. It is front-loaded and to the point.

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 has 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality but does not explain what the output is (e.g., returns the prepared image as base64 or a file). While the schema is rich, the description could be more complete by mentioning output format or limitations (e.g., max image size).

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description repeats some information (e.g., supported sizes) but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Per rules, baseline is 3, and the description does not exceed that.

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 prepares images for professional printing and lists specific features (DPI, bleed margins, crop marks) and supported sizes (A4, A3, Letter, poster, custom) and formats (TIFF, PDF). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like resize_image or remove_background, which serve different purposes.

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 for printing preparation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the features listed.

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