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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Nothing is stored.' Beyond that it discloses the return channel ('you return the HTML; the person opens it and prints or saves as PDF on their own device'), which is real behavioral context an agent needs. It doesn't say what happens with invalid markup or oversized input (the 20000-char cap lives only in the schema).

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core transformation and markup vocabulary before the usage examples and the output/ownership caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information; nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations verbatim.

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 takes on the burden of explaining what comes back (HTML, not a print job) and that nothing is persisted. The only meaningful gap for a 3-parameter tool is the unmentioned 'title' parameter and the absence of any note on input limits.

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 0%, so the description does add real value: it explains the markup syntax accepted by 'text' and that paper size is A4 or Letter. However, the third parameter 'title' is never mentioned in the description, leaving one of three parameters with no semantic explanation anywhere beyond its name and maxLength.

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 and resource ('Turn plain text into a clean, print-ready page') and immediately enumerates the supported markup (# headings, bullets, checkboxes, numbered lists). That level of specificity makes it unmistakable from siblings like make_qr or get_canvas.

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?

Gives concrete use cases (shopping lists, checklists, letters, instructions the person wants on paper) that tell the agent exactly when this is the right tool. It also clarifies the workflow boundary ('You do not print'), though it names no explicit alternative or exclusion case.

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