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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and repeatability profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's only added behavioral fact is that the output is SVG, which is modest but genuine; it says nothing about return shape or size limits.

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 that states the output format and the accepted inputs with zero filler. It is hard to trim further, though it is so terse that it omits useful routing information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should ideally say what the caller receives (inline SVG markup, a file, an image). Naming 'SVG' partially covers this, and the input side is adequately documented in the schema, making the definition minimally viable but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 67%, and the schema itself documents the text/wifi fields and the wifi precedence rule, so the description does not need to compensate heavily. It reinforces the input kinds and the SVG format but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the 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?

Specific verb+resource ('Make an SVG QR code') with the three supported input kinds spelled out (text, URL, Wi-Fi details), which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling make_barcode or explain why one would pick a QR code over a barcode, so it falls short of a 5.

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 says what it produces but never states when to use it versus alternatives such as make_barcode or read_barcode, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. An agent gets no routing guidance beyond the tool name.

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