font_release_check

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and a closed world, so the agent already knows this is a non-destructive but non-idempotent state-affecting call. The description adds that it returns actionable missing requirements and 'never certifies aesthetic perfection', which usefully sets expectations, but it does not disclose what side effects the check has or what it persists.

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 compact sentences, with the scope of the evaluation front-loaded before the input instruction and the return-value caveat. The long enumeration of check categories is dense but each item is informative and nothing is repeated.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format need not be documented, and the description does note the actionable-findings nature of the result. However, for a state-affecting tool with 0% parameter documentation, the description leaves the meaning of project_id/revision and the overall side-effect profile underspecified.

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 0% across 3 parameters, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only hints at one of them ('supply proof_review report_uris' loosely maps to review_uris). project_id and revision receive no explanation, and the accepted URI format/limit is left entirely to 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?

The description gives a specific verb (Evaluate) and enumerates the concrete resource scope: masters, structural measurements, glyph review coverage, localized findings, reference comparisons, shaped text reviews, before release. That is far more specific than a tautology and separable from siblings like font_validate or font_analyze, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 phrase 'before release' implies timing and the instruction to 'Supply proof_review report_uris' hints at a prerequisite, but no sibling is named as an alternative and no exclusion is stated (e.g., when to use font_validate instead). Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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