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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the tool returns every problem found with severity and clearly separating errors (block printing) from warnings (customer awareness). No contradiction with annotations.

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 with no filler. The action and target are front-loaded, and the second sentence earns its place by defining the error/warning output semantics.

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 read-only check with only two fully documented parameters, the description covers purpose, return shape (problems with severity), and the practical meaning of the two severity classes. The lack of an output schema is compensated by the description's explanation of what is returned.

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 both file and preset are already well documented. The description uses the phrase 'print product' to reinforce preset's meaning but adds no new parameter details beyond the schema, so 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 (Check), resource (artwork file), and target (print product), and clarifies the return value: every problem with severity. The phrase 'against a print product' distinguishes it from siblings like inspect_artwork and list_presets.

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 use when validating an artwork against a print product and explains the error/warning distinction, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over inspect_artwork or suggest_fixes, nor does it name any alternatives 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?

The readOnlyHint already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds useful behavioral nuance: it reports raw file-declared values rather than making interpretive judgements. This goes beyond the annotation by clarifying the tool's non-evaluative stance and what specific attributes it exposes.

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 description is compact and front-loaded: the first clause states the core action and resource, the enumeration adds concrete detail, and the final sentence disambiguates from print-readiness tools. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

For a single-parameter, read-only inspection tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it reports, and what it deliberately does not do. An agent has enough information to decide whether to call it and to interpret the result as a factual metadata report rather than a print-readiness verdict.

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 file parameter is already well documented as a path relative to the artwork root. The description adds context about what will be read from that file but does not add new meaning specific to the file parameter itself, which aligns with the baseline score.

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 specific verb ('Read') and resource ('technical properties of an artwork file') and enumerates concrete properties it inspects: pixel size, resolution, colour space, ICC profile, transparency, and content placement. It further distinguishes itself from print-related siblings by explicitly saying it makes no judgement about whether the file can be printed.

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 clearly frames this as an inspection tool for reading what the file reports, and the explicit disclaimer 'makes no judgement about whether it can be printed' implies the agent should look elsewhere for print-readiness evaluation. It does not name sibling tools like check_print_readiness or suggest_fixes directly, so the routing guidance is clear but not fully explicit.

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?

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the read-only nature, and the description does not contradict it. The description adds the scope and output content but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, or data-source specifics. With annotations present, this is acceptable but not especially rich.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the relevant qualifier ('this server knows how to check') and output details. No filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter read-only listing tool, the description adequately states what the operation returns. A bit more specificity about the format or content of 'physical requirements' would improve completeness, but the context is largely sufficient.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is fully complete, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter coverage gap exists.

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 ('List'), an explicit resource ('print products this server knows how to check'), and the output scope ('with their physical requirements'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like inspect_artwork, check_print_readiness, and suggest_fixes.

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 intended usage is implied by the wording: this tool enumerates available print products before checking readiness. However, there is no explicit statement about when to use this versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or workflow 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?

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety, but the description adds useful behavioral details: it produces exactly two messages with different audiences and explicitly states it never modifies the file. That goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the important side-effect guarantee ('never modifies the file') is placed at the end as a clear qualifier.

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 simple, read-only tool with two well-documented parameters, the description is largely complete. It explains the output concept (two messages) and the safety profile. Since there is no output schema, slightly more detail about the exact return format would have pushed this to a 5.

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 explains both parameters clearly: file is a relative path and preset is an enum of print products. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action: turning artwork problems into two concrete messages (customer-facing and internal). It also clarifies that the tool only suggests and never modifies the file. It does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling tool, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 phrase 'problems found in an artwork file' implies this tool is used after analysis, and the read-only nature implies it is not a replacement for inspect_artwork or check_print_readiness. However, it never states explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives.

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