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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only; changes nothing' largely restates structured data. The added value is the result cap ('Returns up to 25 items'), which tells the agent to expect truncation, but no pagination or ranking behavior is described.

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 short sentences, purpose and use cases front-loaded, with the result cap and safety note appended. 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 two-parameter read tool with full annotations and no output schema, coverage is adequate on purpose and safety, but the limit parameter semantics and what a result record contains are left unaddressed.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the burden. It explains that the query matches on name or description, which is genuinely useful, but never mentions the limit parameter; the 'up to 25' line hints at the cap without clarifying how limit controls it.

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 ('Find items in the contractor's own price book by name or description'), scoped to the contractor's own book rather than a global catalog. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling operations like sync_price_book or update_quote_lines.

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?

Gives concrete use cases: answering 'what do I charge for X' and fixing an unmatched line. It conveys context well but names no explicit alternative or when-not-to-use condition, leaving routing to siblings implicit.

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