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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description adds useful behavioral context: the result is a cheap opaque hash, it represents catalog state, and it is intended for change-detection. It also discloses the exact return shape, which the absent output schema would otherwise leave unknown.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, comparison workflow, consequence of ignoring a change, return shape, and a concrete invocation example. It is compact yet high-density, with no filler.

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 simple read-only, one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains purpose, usage, return fields, and gives an example. Nothing important is left 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?

The input schema already fully documents tenant_id with 100% coverage, so the baseline applies. The description only repeats the parameter in an example call without adding new constraints or semantics beyond the schema.

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 action and resource: 'Return a fingerprint of the current catalog for a tenant.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling catalog_search tools by framing the output as an opaque change-detection hash rather than a search result.

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 tells the agent when to use it: compare the returned catalog_version against the one from a previous catalog_search result, and re-run catalog_search if they differ before acting on product_ids. This gives both a concrete workflow and an alternative action.

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