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

Beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, the description discloses that no analysis, signing, or charging occurs here, that the price is 0.02 USDC on Base, and that results are heuristic rather than certification. That is meaningful context an agent cannot get from the annotations. The only shortfall is that it does not describe how the payment step is executed after the prepare call.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by cost, scope disclaimers, and return contents in a compact telegraphic style. Every sentence carries information, though the clustered negation list ('does not perform analysis, sign or charge') reads slightly terse.

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 one-parameter prepare step with no output schema, the description compensates by naming what is returned (canonical endpoint, supplied input, payment instructions) and by bounding expectations with the heuristic caveat. It is nearly complete; only the handoff mechanics after receiving payment instructions are left implicit.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already carries the constraints (UTF-8, 128 KiB cap, no DTD). The description adds only the phrase 'supplied input', which echoes the schema rather than extending it. Baseline 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 states a concrete verb and resource — 'Find artwork risks before sending SVG to print' — and names the specific risk categories it flags (raster, live text, RGB, effects, open paths). It does not differentiate itself from closely named siblings such as prepare_printcheck or prepare_vector_health, so an agent must infer the split from the tool name alone.

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 implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the first step of a paid two-phase flow (prepare here, then call the returned endpoint). There is no explicit 'use this when…, use sibling X when…' routing, and no prerequisite guidance beyond the cost note.

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