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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the effect is presentational — it renders rows to the merchant in the Fudge UI rather than returning data. It omits the 12-ref cap consequence and what happens with invalid or unknown refs.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action stated first and the item list appended; nothing is redundant. The trailing enumeration is a little noisy and its inconsistent capitalization ('work' vs 'Plans') slightly hurts scanability.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema presentation tool, the description covers what is shown and roughly what can be referenced. It falls short on the one thing the agent must get right — the refs format and limits — leaving the caller to guess how to construct valid input.

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 50%: 'store' is documented in the schema but the required 'refs' array has no description there. The description partially compensates by naming the item categories those refs can point to, which is real added meaning. It still never says what form a ref takes (ID, path, URL) or what happens at the 12-item limit.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource ('Show Fudge items to the merchant') plus a mechanism ('as rows that open in Fudge') and enumerates the item kinds (work, Plans, findings, recommendations, reports, products, pages). That makes the operation graspable without the schema. It does not, however, distinguish this from near siblings such as show_draft or show_design_references, and 'open in Fudge' is brand jargon that remains slightly circular.

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 list of item types implies scope, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus the sibling 'show_' or 'create_' tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must infer that this is the general-purpose surfacing call while show_draft etc. are specialized ones.

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