fleet_colour_match

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 reveals only the tier requirement; it says nothing about side effects, whether it queries live fleet state, rate limits, or what the match result looks like, and half the text is pricing/marketing filler.

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?

The opening sentence is well front-loaded, but three of four lines are Business-tier upsell and a pricing URL that do not help an agent invoke the tool. Substantial text is wasted on promotional content.

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 and no annotations, the description must carry behavioral and return-value context, yet it omits both. For a 3-parameter matching tool with undocumented arrays, this is materially incomplete.

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 33% (only 'material' has a description, and it is just 'Default: "".'), and the two array parameters have no item type. With coverage well below 50%, the description should compensate but instead says nothing about colours format, material matching semantics, or how printer_names scopes the search.

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 capability: identifying which printers in the fleet already have each colour loaded and which printer to use. The question phrasing is clear about verb and resource, though it does not name a sibling to differentiate against (e.g. find_printers_with_material).

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?

It discloses a prerequisite ('Requires Kiln Business'), which is useful context, but gives no when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no alternatives among the many fleet/material matching siblings. The bulk of the text is upsell rather than usage direction.

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