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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context: it is paginated, explains the offset/next_offset mechanism and has_more flag, and lists the exact return fields. It does not contradict annotations and discloses all relevant operational behavior without being redundant.

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 compact but information-dense, leading with the core purpose and then layering details. It is structured logically (scope, returns, filters, pagination, alternative) and avoids fluff, though it is slightly longer than the minimum needed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are already defined. The description covers pagination, filters, and the relationship to sibling tools, leaving no missing operational guidance for a read-only listing tool. It is complete for an agent to call 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter already has a detailed description (e.g., offset explains pagination, category_slug references findagent_list_categories). The description repeats these details without adding new meaning, so it provides marginal value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action: browse the PUBLISHED catalogue with pricing, and clearly enumerates the returned fields and filters. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by referencing the website listing and explicitly naming findagent_get_agent for single-agent detail, making its scope unambiguous.

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?

It gives a clear alternative: 'Use findagent_get_agent for the full store view of one slug,' which tells the agent when to prefer another tool. It also references findagent_list_categories for category slugs, but does not enumerate other exclusions (e.g., when to use findagent_list_my_agents). This is clear context with a single explicit alternative, but not exhaustive guidance.

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