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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds genuinely non-schema information: it requires a personal SDSentry access token created by the account owner under Admin > AI assistants, requires a free-trial or paid plan, and reads only that account's data. It does not mention result size limits or pagination, which is the main remaining gap.

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 paragraph that front-loads the returned fields, then the filter, then the access and plan prerequisites. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is restated from the title or padding.

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-only listing tool with no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating returned fields and stating auth and plan prerequisites. The only omission is behavior for large inventories, such as pagination or caps.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the single "location" parameter as a partial location name with an example. The description repeats the contains-text matching idea ("locations whose name contains that text") but adds no case-sensitivity, multi-word, or empty-string behavior beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List the chemicals in your own SDSentry inventory") and enumerates exactly what each row contains: product, manufacturer, location, storage spot, SDS status, revision date, and sheet link. It also implicitly separates itself from the find_*/search_sds siblings by framing this as an unfiltered listing of the caller's own inventory.

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?

Clear context for use: it lists your own account's inventory, with the optional "location" argument described as a narrowing filter. It never explicitly names find_sds_for_inventory or search_sds as the alternative when you don't want to enumerate everything, so the when-not-to-use guidance is left implicit.

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