font_missing_check

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It never states that this is a read-only inspection, what happens if no fonts are missing, whether it can be slow on large documents, or what the result actually contains.

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?

A single short sentence with the verb-restatement pattern kept to a minimum and no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple inspection tool, though it is arguably too terse to be useful.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only place an agent could learn what a 'check' returns (a list of missing fonts, a count, a status). That information is entirely absent, leaving the agent unable to interpret the result of the call.

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% and the single document_id parameter is fully documented, including the name-or-index convention and the front-document default. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the 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) and a specific target (missing fonts in the document), which is meaningfully narrower than siblings like font_list or font_find. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from font_list, font_find, or export_getFonts, so an agent must infer the distinction from the word 'missing'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus font_list, font_find, font_change, or export_getFonts. No prerequisites, no mention of what state the document should be in, and no indication of whether it targets the whole document or a scope.

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