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

Annotations already declare a safe, read-only, idempotent, closed-world lookup, so the bar is lower. The description goes beyond them usefully: it discloses the top-10 cap, ascending sort, default exclusion of uncut-sheet runs, and the returned fields (notes printed, rarity band, serial range).

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, zero filler; the scope, ordering and output fields come first and the conditional exclusion is stated only once where it matters.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description names what a run entry contains and how many are returned, and annotations supply the safety profile. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% with enums fully documented, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description only restates the three optional filters and confirms the include_sheet_runs default, adding little beyond structured data.

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 resource (US star note print runs) with scope and ordering (smallest first, top 10) and names the optional filter dimensions. An agent can distinguish it from check_serial, get_coverage and list_serial_patterns without opening any schema.

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 that filters are optional and that results are the top 10 smallest runs, plus an explicit rule for sheet-only runs ('left out unless include_sheet_runs is true'). It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over the sibling tools, so it stops short of 5.

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