check_small_size_legibility

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.