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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior such as text being shrunk or wrapped to fit with a notice when content is shortened, plus paper/layout-specific output dimensions. It does restate return artifacts that the output schema already covers, which keeps it from the top mark.

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?

Structure is well front-loaded: trigger first, optionality second, outputs third, exclusions last. It is a single dense paragraph with almost no filler, though the enumeration of all optional fields and output artifacts is longer than strictly necessary given full schema and output-schema coverage.

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?

For a 13-parameter generation tool with zero required fields, the description covers when to call, the only required input, the defaults and option space, and the nature of the returned artifacts. With an output schema present and annotations carrying the safety profile, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 every one of the 13 parameters is already documented in structured form, including defaults and layout/paper enumerations. The description only restates the field list and enum values (classic, centered, band, monogram, qr; US Letter or A4) without adding new formatting constraints beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb-and-resource framing ("make a business card, a business card template or printable business cards") and then names the concrete artifacts produced (print-at-home PDF, print-shop PDF with bleed, vCard, live preview). The closing negative list (no logos/photos, no flyers, no name badges or address labels) draws a hard boundary around the tool's scope, so an agent can tell instantly what this tool does and does not cover.

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?

Usage is stated as an explicit trigger condition: "Use this when the user wants to make a business card..." and the last sentence gives explicit when-not cases (flyers, name badges, address labels, logos/photos). It also notes which parameter is mandatory versus optional, which is the practical prerequisite an agent needs before calling.

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