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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real value beyond them: the two return values, the 25+ volume-pricing threshold, and an explicit statelessness list (no draft, order, charge, artwork approval, or production send). It does not describe what a validation failure looks like, which is the one gap for a tool whose primary job is validation.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and outputs, then pricing policy, then non-effects. Every sentence carries information an agent needs and none repeats the title or annotations.

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 names the return values (preview link, nonbinding estimate) and warns against treating the result as an order. For a tool with this much nested schema, guidance on the design payload would complete it, but the schema itself documents fields, enums, and defaults thoroughly.

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 a single deeply nested `design` parameter whose top-level schema description coverage is 0%. The description only says the design must be 'complete' and notes artwork is a browser-side concern; it does not explain the payload shape, so the nested schema has to carry the full burden.

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 first sentence names specific verbs and resources: validate a jersey design and return a preview link plus a nonbinding estimate. It is unmistakably distinct from siblings like prepare_scarf_design or get_product, and an agent knows exactly what comes back.

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 establishes clear usage boundaries: it is a preview, not an order; artwork is added in the browser rather than through this call; and 25+ units require a custom quote instead of this estimate. It stops short of explicitly naming when to prefer a sibling tool, but the exclusions cover the main misuse risk.

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