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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds that entries include a 'validated, media-normalized manifest', which is useful behavioral context about return content. It doesn't discuss pagination behavior or rate limits, so it meets the lower bar with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then a detail about output content, then a routing hint. No wasted words.

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 read-only list tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, output content nature, and routing to get_snack. It doesn't explain pagination defaults or maximum limits, but the schema provides numeric bounds. Mostly complete given the simplicity.

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 33%: influencerId has a description ('Influencer id from list_influencers'), but limit and offset have no descriptions in schema. The description doesn't compensate by explaining limit/offset semantics. Baseline 3 since the required parameter is documented, but the optional ones are not.

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 (List) and resource (snack content packs for one influencer), and names the dashboard location ('Content' tab) for disambiguation. It clearly differs from list_snacks (all snacks) and get_snack (single detail).

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 tells the agent to use get_snack for full detail on any returned id, which is a clear alternative. It doesn't state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., for other influencers or bulk listing without influencer filter), but the context is sufficient for selection.

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