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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing what the call returns — export-DPI dimensions, panel geometry, and supported intents — which is behavior an agent can't infer from the annotations.

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, zero filler, and the ordering is correct: the payload description comes first, then the actionable 'call this BEFORE...' instruction. Everything stated 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden — and it does, describing the sheet, panels, and intent sections. Combined with read-only annotations and a fully documented single parameter, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the single enum'd parameter is documented in the schema ('A slug from list_formats'). The description adds no further constraint or format detail about the parameter itself, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource — describing ONE format in detail — and enumerates exactly what that detail contains (sheet dimensions in px and inches at export DPI, per-panel rectangles, accepted intent sections). This clearly separates it from the sibling list_formats, which enumerates all formats rather than describing one.

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?

Explicitly prescribes when to call it: 'Call this BEFORE generating artwork for a format so each image is made at the right size and aspect.' That is a clear sequencing rule tied to a concrete downstream task. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., list_formats for slug discovery), so it is not a full 5.

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