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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real context beyond them: the data is read live from the shop's declared catalog and requires no quote. It stops short of describing the shape of the relayed list or any freshness/caching caveats.

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 tight sentences: scope first, then the trigger, then the exclusion and the anti-hallucination rule. No filler and nothing buried.

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 read-only two-parameter lookup with no output schema, everything an agent needs is present: what it returns conceptually (gauges per material for one shop), when to call it, when to call the sibling, and the no-memory constraint.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: 'shop' must be a single named maker (as the user or offer cards name it) and 'material' narrows the relayed list rather than being required, reinforcing the schema's advisory note.

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 ('every sheet thickness a named shop stocks right now, per material') and explicitly scopes it to ONE shop, which cleanly separates it from the network-wide sibling get_network_capabilities.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger with a sample user utterance ('what thicknesses does SendCutSend have in mild steel?'), names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it, and adds a hard directive ('Never answer a gauge question from memory').

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