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 semantics are covered. The description adds genuine value beyond those flags by framing the tool as the authoritative, non-memory-based source of truth ('use this tool instead of relying on remembered or assumed capabilities'), which tells the agent to trust this over its own priors. It stops short of describing return shape or freshness guarantees.

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 primary purpose before the exclusion list. Every clause maps to either a covered domain or a sibling redirection, though the enumeration and exclusion list together make it longer than strictly minimal.

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 zero-argument, read-only lookup tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and routing completely. The only mild gap is that it does not hint at the shape or granularity of the returned catalog/pricing data, though with no output schema that omission is minor.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline this scores 4. There are no arguments for the description to explain, and the description correctly spends its words on routing and scope rather than inventing parameter guidance.

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 (get authoritative 3D2HOLO product info) and enumerates the content domains it covers: supported input types, output formats, LPI ranges, workflows, and pricing. It explicitly names what it is not for, which separates it from get_workflow_guide, calculate_output_params, and get_print_quote. The umbrella phrase 'product information' is slightly broad, but the enumeration grounds it.

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 states when to use it ('when the user asks what 3D2HOLO supports... or current product/pricing information') and when not to use it ('calculating a specific print size, generating an LPI test chart, selecting a workflow for a specific input, or estimating a custom print quote'), pointing to specialized alternatives for each excluded case. An agent can route correctly from this text alone.

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