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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: results are ordered by usage, unknown or inactive creators yield not_found, and the payload shape mirrors search results.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the return content is front-loaded before the error case. The ordering guarantee and error behavior are each delivered once.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be enumerated; the description still briefly characterizes the payload. With annotations covering the safety profile and full schema coverage, an agent has enough to call this correctly, though it would benefit from routing guidance versus siblings.

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%, with limit, cursor and handle all documented in the schema itself (defaults, maximum, pattern). The description adds no parameter-level detail such as handle formatting or pagination semantics, so the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: returns a creator's public profile plus their public kits, and even specifies ordering (most used at the top). The phrase 'same fields as search results' implicitly separates it from search_kits and get_kit, though it never names those siblings directly.

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 explicit guidance on when to choose this over search_kits or get_kit, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the tool name and the mention of a handle-based lookup.

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