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

Annotations already establish that this is safe, read-only, and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral context by clarifying it returns product facts only and 'Does not crawl a site,' which helps an agent avoid misusing this tool for general web fetching. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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 description is three sentences with no filler: it front-loads the return contents, then gives usage triggers, then clarifies a key limitation. Every sentence earns its place.

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 parameterless, read-only tool with an output schema already present, the description covers the key decision points: what it returns, when to use it, and what it does not do. No critical information is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so parameter-level explanation is unnecessary. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than inventing parameter guidance.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Return Foliora product facts,' and enumerates the exact content areas (brand, plan, add-ons, canonical URLs, product boundaries). It clearly separates this from sibling tools by focusing on product-level facts rather than site changes, snapshots, or previews.

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?

The description gives explicit triggering conditions: 'Use when the user asks what Foliora is, how much it costs, or which URL to open.' It also adds a meaningful negative cue, 'Does not crawl a site,' but it does not point to an alternative sibling tool for those other cases.

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