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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, and the description adds real value beyond them: the auth gate (signed-in Printdash account, otherwise the customer is prompted to sign in), that values reflect how the site resolves them, and that artwork may still be changeable. Return shape is left to the output schema, which is appropriate.

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 sentences, contents first then the auth precondition, with no filler. The first sentence is a dense run-on listing five outputs, which costs a little readability but every clause carries information.

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?

Covers what the tool returns at a summary level, the auth requirement, and the fact that results reflect site-side resolution; an output schema exists so per-field return documentation is not required. Only missing piece is explicit sibling disambiguation for a crowded artwork toolset.

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%, including the kind enum and its provenance (line_id from get_cart/get_quote, item_id from get_order), so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of cart line / quote line / order job maps onto kind but adds no syntax or defaults 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 (list) and resource (artwork on a cart line, quote line or order job) and enumerates what the listing contains: per-design front/back file and page, ready count, changeability, uploader link. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_artwork_uploader_link (link only) or check_artwork (validation).

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 by the resource named (a line's artwork), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs check_artwork, get_artwork_requirements, or get_artwork_uploader_link, which are the obvious overlaps. An agent must infer which sibling to call from names alone.

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