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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It never says whether the brief is persisted or purely returned, whether any inputs are rejected, or what the output looks like, leaving an agent guessing about the tool's side effects and result shape.

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 well-formed sentence with the inputs front-loaded and the output named last. It earns its place without padding, though it is arguably undersized for a 7-parameter tool.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is the only source of behavioral information and it supplies almost none. It should at minimum explain the optional parameters and what the resulting brief contains.

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 7 parameters. The description names four of them (idea, style, placement, size) matching the required set, but says nothing about the three optional ones (avoid, color, must_include) or about constraints such as the 200 cm size ceiling.

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 names a clear transformation ('turn a tattoo idea, style, placement and size into a structured brief'), so the verb and resource are unambiguous and an agent can tell it produces a brief rather than a check or a prompt. It does not differentiate itself from the siblings check_small_size_legibility or line_art_prompt, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tools that could be used instead or in addition. 'To bring to a tattoo artist' hints at the downstream consumer but says nothing about when this tool is the right choice.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a genuinely useful trait — that results are heuristic rules of thumb and not a guarantee — which sets expectations about reliability. However, it says nothing about what the tool returns, how risk is graded, or whether it is a pure read operation.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed immediately by the key caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is too thin for the tool it documents. An agent still cannot tell what a result looks like or how to interpret the detail categories, which the description should have covered.

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%, so the description must compensate for the two undocumented parameters. It loosely gestures at 'size' and 'tattoo details', but never explains the size_cm unit/limits or the meaning of the ten enum categories (fine_lines, dotwork, white_ink, etc.), leaving the most consequential input semantics unexplained.

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 states a specific verb+resource: a heuristic blur-risk check on tattoo details at a given size. It is clearly an assessment/diagnostic tool, distinct in kind from build_tattoo_brief and line_art_prompt, though it never names or explicitly distinguishes itself from those siblings.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite or condition, and no mention of alternatives. The agent can infer it is used before committing to an undersized design, but that inference is left entirely to the reader.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one useful trait — that a negative prompt is generated alongside the main prompt — but says nothing about whether an external AI is invoked, determinism, cost, or failure modes, which matters for a prompt-generation tool.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero padding, which is structurally clean. However, it is under-sized for a five-parameter tool, so brevity here is more omission than efficiency.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage across five parameters, the description is expected to compensate heavily and instead supplies a single sentence. An agent could not reliably populate 'style', 'composition', or 'line_weight' semantics from it.

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?

Five parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. It never explains 'subject', 'style', 'composition', the 'line_weight' enum values, or what 'extra' accepts, leaving the agent to infer all input semantics from bare names.

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 ('Write') and resource ('line-art prompt ... for an AI tattoo generator'), so the agent knows what is produced. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings build_tattoo_brief or check_small_size_legibility, but the resource is distinct enough to infer separation.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tools or when one should be preferred over another. The agent must guess whether this replaces or complements build_tattoo_brief.

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