LNX QR codes

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write/create profile is known. The description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations do not carry: the return payload includes the image, a print-size PNG link and a studio edit link. It omits auth/permission or rate-limit context, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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, front-loaded with the core action and outputs, then the styling/frame guidance. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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 10-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description usefully compensates by naming the outputs (image, PNG link, edit link) and by summarizing the style/frame knobs. Combined with the 90%-covered schema it is nearly complete; it lacks only edge-case behavior and constraint caveats beyond content length.

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 90%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter in detail, including enums, hex color rules and frame_text limits. The description adds only the 'style + optional frame with a call to action' framing, which largely restates what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Creates) and resource (a styled QR code) and enumerates the supported content types (link, text, email, phone). It also names the concrete outputs, so an agent knows exactly what the tool produces. No siblings exist, so differentiation is not needed.

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?

The description tells the agent to 'Choose a style and an optional frame with a short call to action' and gives an example of frame text, which implies how to configure the call. It does not state when to prefer this tool or any preconditions/limitations beyond the content types. With no sibling tools, there are no alternatives to route between, so usage is only lightly implied.

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