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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds that only previously generated snacks are returned and that results are paginated, which is useful context, but it omits default page size, ordering, and whether empty results are possible.

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 clipped sentences that front-load the resource, then the optional scope, then the pagination trait. No filler, every clause carries information.

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 and one third of parameters undocumented, the description should carry more: default page size, result ordering, and what a snack record minimally contains. It covers the essentials for a simple read-only list but leaves real gaps for an agent to guess at.

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 only 33% — brandId is documented in the schema while limit and offset carry only numeric bounds. The description partially compensates by noting the brand scoping and pagination, but it gives no default limit, ordering, or offset semantics, so the minimum-viable baseline of 3 is the right level.

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 ('List previously generated snack posts') plus the optional scope, which is far more informative than the title's tautology. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like get_snack, list_influencer_snacks, or generate_snacks, so an agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: list-type tool for previously generated snacks, with an optional brand filter. There is no statement of when to prefer this over list_influencer_snacks or when a fetch-by-id (get_snack) is more appropriate, and no prerequisites are mentioned.

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