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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world calculation, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no DPI quality thresholds, no note on how mismatched aspect ratios between pixels and print size are handled, and the "Returns: {effective_dpi}" line duplicates the output 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?

Two short sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and no padding. The trailing returns line and bundle cross-reference are low-value given an output schema exists, but they cost little.

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 simple deterministic calculator with full annotation coverage, a documented schema, and an output schema, the definition gives the agent enough to call it correctly. Only the absence of any usage/routing context keeps it from a 5.

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% and all four parameters carry their own descriptions with units (px, cm), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, unit, or constraint detail (e.g., accepted ranges or aspect-ratio behavior) beyond what the schema already states.

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 two concrete outputs (print DPI quality and maximum print size) from clearly identified inputs (image pixel dimensions plus print dimensions). It is distinguishable from photography siblings like calculate_crop_factor or calculate_depth_of_field, though it never names an alternative to sharpen the boundary.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this rather than a sibling. The only routing hint is "See list_bundles for related 'photographie' calculators," which points at a discovery tool rather than giving a condition for choosing this calculator.

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