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

Goes well past the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it discloses the auth requirement and the exact failure mode ("the connection asks the customer to sign in on printdash.io"), states that the check never blocks an order, explains that unmeasurable items surface as silence rather than errors, and notes each notice carries a guide link. That is precisely the kind of context an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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?

A single front-loaded paragraph with zero filler — the long middle list of checks is information-dense rather than redundant. It reads slightly run-on (the layer-items list plus the trailing auth sentence), but every sentence earns its place.

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?

Output is covered by an output schema, and the description fills the remaining gaps an agent needs: auth prerequisite and its failure behavior, non-blocking semantics, silence-means-unmeasured convention, and the image preview return. Nothing material to a correct invocation 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% and the nested target object (kind/id/side/design) is fully documented, so the description adds nothing about parameters. The phrase "on a line's artwork" loosely maps to the target, but no format or selection guidance is contributed beyond the schema.

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 — "Runs Printdash's file checks on a line's artwork" — and enumerates the exact checks (page size vs ordered size, bleed, spot/cut layers, knocked-out finishes, leftover template guides), so an agent knows precisely what it produces. It never names a sibling such as get_artwork_requirements or attach_artwork, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 only implied: it says it runs "the same ones the product page and checkout show" and "Never blocks an order", which hints at pre-order validation, but there is no explicit "use this instead of X" or precondition beyond being signed in. Alternatives like get_artwork_requirements or get_artwork_guide are not contrasted.

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