qr_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses the return shape (image_base64, base64 PNG), the per-call cost ($0.004 USDC), and p99 latency (100ms). It does not mention auth/payment prerequisites or failure modes, which keeps it just short of complete.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then return value, then parameters, then cost/latency. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is 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?

For a 3-param generator with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, return format, defaults, ranges, cost and latency — enough for an agent to invoke it correctly and reason about tradeoffs.

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%, so both size and error_correction are already fully documented with ranges and defaults. The description restates them and its 'H survives up to 30% damage' note duplicates the schema's own 'H=30%' text, adding no new meaning.

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 for any text or URL') and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings like barcode and image_resize by naming the encodable input. An agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 scope ('any text or URL') implies when it applies, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. barcode for 1D codes). Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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