Wi-Fi QR code and card

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real context: special characters (; , : " \) are escaped, PDF labels are English/Latin-only for now, and the card mirrors the website's design. It stops short of describing the returned value or where the file lands by default, though the output param partly covers the latter.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded, but the body is a single sprawling sentence that re-enumerates schema-defined options (A6/A4/A4x4/A4x9, colour header, password placement) and tacks on a web link. Tightening the option list would make it easier to scan.

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 13-parameter generator with no output schema, the description covers formats, security modes, hidden networks, escaping and a known localization limitation. The main omission is what the tool returns (file path vs. base64) and default output location, which the schema only partially implies.

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 every parameter is already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description reinforces format/layout/theme choices but adds no syntax or edge-case detail (e.g. size vs. margin interaction, base64 size limits) beyond what the schema states.

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 ("Make a Wi-Fi QR code") with the exact scope: security types supported, hidden networks, and the three output formats (PNG/SVG/PDF card). This clearly separates it from the generic qr_generate sibling, which would not know about Wi-Fi payloads or printable card layouts.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase "that phones join by scanning" and by the format/layout enumeration. There is no explicit statement of when to choose this over qr_generate or barcode_generate, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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