printer_api_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds real value on top: it warns that responses may include sensitive network/system details and that unbounded camera streams are unsupported. That is behavioral context an agent would not get from the structured fields alone.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the exclusion and the data-sensitivity caveat. Efficient, though slightly cryptic in places ('bounded local printer endpoint').

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 7-parameter, nested-object tool with no output schema and very low schema coverage, the description is too thin. It omits how the body/form/query/files parameters map to endpoints and omits any reference to printer_api_catalog as the source of valid endpoint templates, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 only 29% across 7 parameters, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameter roles and does not. It adds nothing about api, form, files, query, path_parameters, or body, and only the schema's own endpoint/body descriptions hint at usage.

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 gives a specific verb (GET) and resource (a documented bounded local printer endpoint), so the agent knows this is a read call against known endpoints. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling printer_api_write or explain what 'bounded' means, leaving the read/write distinction to be inferred from the name.

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?

'Does not support unbounded camera streams' is a genuine when-not exclusion, and 'request only what is needed' is soft usage guidance. But it never names the alternative tools (printer_api_catalog to look up endpoints, printer_api_write to mutate them), so routing is only implied.

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