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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a real constraint beyond annotations: the 8-item display cap and the visual-card rendering format, which an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and capped by a usage directive. Minor redundancy with the schema on the 8-item limit and ID provenance, but nothing is wasted.

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?

A one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema present, so return values needn't be explained. The description covers the prerequisite source of IDs and the display cap; only minor details like behavior with invalid or fewer-than-8 IDs are unstated.

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 the itemIds property description already states '1-8 item IDs from search_items or browse_items, in display order'. The description repeats this information rather than adding new semantics, so baseline 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 (show 1stDibs items as visual cards) and enumerates what the card contains: photo, price, product link. This differentiates it from siblings like search_items and item_details, which retrieve rather than render.

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 says to use item IDs returned by search_items or browse_items and to order them best match first. This tells the agent both the prerequisite step and the sibling relationship.

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