Preflight Check

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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, idempotent, non-destructive read, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing a limitation (not exhaustive) and a semantic quirk (GrayColor ink-quantity interpretation differing from the API reference) that an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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 the core purpose front-loaded before the caveats. Every sentence carries weight; the GrayColor note is dense but cryptically worded without the surrounding context.

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, the description would ideally hint at what the check returns or how findings are reported, and it does not. For a read-only tool with fully documented optional params, the limitation caveats help, but the gap on return/finding semantics leaves it only adequate.

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 all three parameters (min_dpi, coordinate_system, target_pdf_profile) are fully documented in the schema with defaults, enums, and meanings. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 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 ('Run pre-press quality checks'), which is clearly distinct from sibling checks like check_contrast or check_text_consistency. However, it never names those siblings or scopes what 'pre-press quality checks' actually encompasses, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 caveat that the check 'is not exhaustive' and 'does not replace a human final review' gives useful when-not-to-rely guidance, but there is no explicit when-to-use framing or pointer to any alternative tool. Usage is only implied.

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