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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: unknown categories are rejected with the valid list rather than silently returning everything; the `warnings` array signals narrower-than-requested results; and `accepts_photoreal` absence means 'no published signal', NOT 'unsuitable'. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and scoping, and each clause carries information. Minor redundancy: find_garments is invoked twice and the warnings caveat is restated, plus a stray '[#5e449d]' artifact at the end.

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 usefully explains the response's `warnings`, `decoration_method`, and `accepts_photoreal` fields. Pagination semantics and the `workspace` parameter remain unexplained, a small residual gap for a 7-parameter tool.

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 only 43%, so the description carries weight: it explains `category` resolution against the provider's own taxonomy with rejection on unknown values, `keyword` matching across the whole catalog, and how to obtain valid `provider` values. Only `page`, `per_page`, and `workspace` are left uninterpreted, which are largely self-evident.

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 (browse), resource (catalog), and scope (ONE fulfillment provider, garments to print on). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling find_garments, which covers a different scope (whole account).

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?

Explicitly names the alternative and the condition that selects it: 'This searches a SINGLE provider: to ask what the whole account can do, or before concluding a garment cannot take a design, use find_garments.' It also routes to list_catalog_providers for valid provider values.

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