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

Annotations only assert readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds real behavioral context: results are `ord`-ascending, spec/specRevision only appear with includeSpec which yields a 'much larger response', completed features are gated by allowDone, and pagination requires reusing the same parameters with nextCursor. It does not spell out the returned shape, but that is beyond a read-only list tool's usual burden.

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 dense sentence front-loads the core action and ordering before covering the optional flags and pagination. No filler, though cramming purpose, options, and paging into one sentence makes it slightly dense to parse.

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 still covers ordering, filtering, payload-size implications, and the paging loop needed to use the tool correctly. For a read-only list endpoint it is essentially complete, missing only a note on default result size or explicit non-use cases.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: it discloses the response-size tradeoff of includeSpec, that allowDone filters to completed-only, and crucially that the next page must be fetched with nextCursor using the same parameters. That pagination contract is genuine added value over the field definitions.

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 ('Lists the features of a product or one version') plus ordering ('`ord` ascending'), which lets an agent distinguish a bulk-listing operation from the sibling `feature_search`. It stops short of explicitly naming the search sibling as the alternative, so it is clear but not fully disambiguated.

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?

"for an overview of what a product contains" implies the intended browse/overview use case, and it notes when to add includeSpec or allowDone. However, it never states when NOT to use this tool or names feature_search/feature_context as the alternative for targeted lookups, so routing guidance remains implicit.

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