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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the produced QR resolves to a location opened in the device's default maps app, which tells the agent what the artifact is for.

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 sentences, no filler, with the core action first and the downstream behavior second. Every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter, fully documented, output-schema-backed tool with rich annotations, the description supplies what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. Only minor details (e.g., URI precision or format of the encoded string) are left unstated, and the output schema covers returns.

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 100% and both parameters carry ranges and units in the schema itself. The description only restates 'latitude/longitude pair', adding no format, precision, or edge-case meaning beyond the structured fields, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (encode) and resource (a geo: URI QR) plus the two inputs, so the agent knows exactly what this produces. It is distinguishable from the qr_build_wifi and qr_build_vcard siblings by the geo domain, though no sibling is named explicitly and none needs to be.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the tool for location QR codes, but there is no when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as qr_generate or qr_generate_from_template. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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?

Annotations already declare this as readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and not open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that the output QR, when scanned, adds the contact to an address book.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the scanning effect. There is no redundant or filler 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, full schema descriptions, rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool produces and why it is used. It does not need to explain return values or permissions in more detail.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter's meaning and format. The description lists the same fields but does not add syntax, constraints, or other parameter-level meaning beyond what is already in 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Encode a contact card (vCard)... into a QR.' It names the exact fields and the resulting behavior, so an agent can distinguish this specialized vCard builder from generic QR generation or sibling builders like qr_build_wifi and qr_build_geo.

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 description implies the use case by stating that scanning the QR adds the contact to a phone's address book. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over qr_generate or other QR builders, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return shape (a WIFI:... payload string plus a generated QR image), which is genuinely useful context beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about failure modes such as invalid auth/credential combinations.

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 action and credential set, followed by the return value. No filler or redundancy.

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 an output schema present and 100% parameter coverage, the description need not explain return values, yet it briefly does. It is complete enough for a simple deterministic builder, with only the missing sibling-routing guidance as a small gap.

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 100%, so each parameter (ssid, password, authType, hidden) is already documented in the schema, including the nopass enum meaning. The description only echoes the field names, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Encode Wi-Fi credentials ... into a scannable Wi-Fi QR') and enumerates the inputs it consumes, making it clearly distinguishable from qr_build_vcard, qr_build_geo, and the generic qr_generate 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?

Usage is implied by the name and description — you use this when you need a Wi-Fi QR — but there is no explicit routing guidance versus the generic qr_generate tool or the other qr_build_* variants, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds little beyond that: no note on whether the logoUrl must be publicly reachable, how additionalConfig merges/overrides, or generation latency, and the output schema already covers returns.

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 sentences, no redundancy, with the capability scope front-loaded and the selection condition second. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 17-parameter tool the description is short, but the 100% schema coverage, output schema, and full annotation set carry the detail. It conveys what the tool produces and when to pick it; the only real gap is not naming the AI sibling explicitly.

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 100%, so every one of the 17 parameters is already documented in the schema, including enums, ranges, and defaults. The description only groups them at a high level (colors, shapes, logo, caption, format) without adding syntax or precedence detail, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource (generate a QR code) with the scope of control enumerated: colors, module/finder shapes, logo, caption, output format. The 'manual' framing plus 'explicit control' implicitly separates it from qr_generate_ai, so an agent can route between the two without opening schemas.

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?

'Use this when the user already knows the design they want' gives a clear selection condition and implicitly contrasts with the AI-driven sibling. It stops short of naming qr_generate_ai as the alternative or stating exclusions, so it is good context rather than full routing guidance.

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?

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully conveys that output is LLM-determined and thus variable, but says nothing about response shape, latency, or whether the result is returned inline or as a URL (though an output schema exists).

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: the mechanism and its distinguishing AI behavior come first, the use-case example second. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 an output schema handling return values and annotations covering safety and determinism hints, the remaining need is when-to-use, which the example clause addresses. Only the absence of explicit sibling routing keeps it from full completeness.

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 71% and the schema already documents prompt, content, logoUrl, fileFormat, and stylePreset. The description reinforces the prompt's purpose with a concrete example, but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so it sits at the baseline.

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 and resource ('Generate a QR code') and specifies the mechanism (a branding LLM picks colors/shapes from a prompt), which separates it from plain qr_generate and the template/builder siblings. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 'Best for "make me a luxury gold dotted QR for a coffee brand" style requests' clause gives a concrete use-case trigger that tells an agent when this tool is the right pick. It offers no explicit when-not or named-alternative routing (e.g., use qr_generate for exact control), leaving a small gap.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the phrase 'for this specific call' usefully clarifies that overrides are ephemeral and the template itself is not mutated. It stops short of describing the rendered artifact's return shape, though an output schema exists for that.

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 that first establishes the core action (render template by id), then the optional adjustments. No filler, though it is dense enough that the override list reads as a run-on.

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 values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description adequately covers the override behavior for an 8-parameter tool; the only real gap is not pointing at qr_list_templates as the id source in the prose.

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?

The description groups the 8 parameters into meaningful categories (content, colors, output format/size) and frames them as overrides, which adds some meaning. But at 75% schema coverage the schema already documents these fields with defaults and ranges, so the description mostly restates them without adding format or constraint detail.

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 (Render) and resource (curated templates by id), which distinguishes it from qr_generate and qr_generate_ai at a glance. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated, keeping it 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?

Usage is only implied: render a template when you want a curated design, and the overrides apply per-call. It never says when to prefer this over qr_generate or qr_generate_ai, nor does it state that a template id must first come from qr_list_templates (that hint lives only in the schema).

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the catalog is a fixed, bounded set of 118 templates and each entry carries a preview thumbnail URL, which tells the agent this is a cheap, complete enumeration rather than a paginated or variable result.

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 sentences, no waste, with the resource and its contents front-loaded before the optional filter guidance.

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 single-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: scope, cardinality, returned fields, and filter behavior.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the optional category filter and its example values. The description only restates the filter's purpose in user-facing terms ('if the user asks for a specific style'), adding marginal meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('List the 118 pre-designed QR templates') and enumerates the returned fields, which cleanly separates it from the qr_generate* siblings that produce QR codes rather than enumerate the catalog.

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 description tells the agent when to apply the category filter ('if the user asks for a specific style') but never states when to choose this tool over qr_generate_from_template, nor what to do after selecting a template. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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