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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a recency-ordered, bounded result set ("most recently scanned") but says nothing about ordering direction, result limits, pagination, whether seeds from older scans are excluded, or what happens when no scan has run — meaningful gaps for a list tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

One sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded and no filler. Every word earns its place; the problem is under-specification, not verbosity.

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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage this is minimally adequate, but with no output schema the description should say what a "seed" record contains and what "most recently" means quantitatively. The domain term "seed" is also left unexplained.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, which already explains product_id and even how to obtain it via list_products. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

A specific verb and resource ("List ... seeds") plus a scope ("for a product") and an implicit ordering ("most recently scanned"). It reads clearly, but it never differentiates itself from the related siblings expand_seeds or trigger_scan, so an agent must infer where listing ends and expanding begins.

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?

"Most recently scanned" hints at the situation (after a scan has run) but gives no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and does not name trigger_scan or expand_seeds as alternatives. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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