check_skin_contact_suitability

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose one genuinely useful trait — answers are 'cited' and 'tier-gated', with free tier returning only flags and remediation/compliance detail gated behind paid tiers. However, it says nothing about permissions, read-only nature, or what the response actually contains, and the framing is marketing-driven.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the tier table that follows is compact. Nothing is buried or 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?

For a four-parameter, zero-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description gives the question being answered and the tier-gating behavior but not the shape of the answer or what show_math does. An agent could call it, but would be guessing at the return content.

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 nominally 100%, but the descriptions are placeholder text ('Default: ""'), so they carry almost no meaning. The description gestures at the material and use parameters ('a printed material OK against skin', 'for a use') but never explains exposure or show_math. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the coverage figure.

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 first sentence states a specific question the tool answers: whether a printed material is OK against skin, and which materials are lower-risk for a given use. That is a clear verb+resource statement of purpose. It does not distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as check_skin_contact_declaration, record_skin_contact_outcome, or food_safety_for_printer, so it stops short of a 5.

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 explicit guidance on when to call this versus the skin-contact declaration/outcome siblings or the broader material safety tools. The only usage-adjacent content is the tier table, which describes what a paying customer gets back, not when an agent should reach for this tool.

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