Check print readiness

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.