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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: which pages appear depends on whether the person is signed in, and labels come in the requested locale. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: what the tool returns, when to use it, and a behavioral caveat. The key purpose is front-loaded and there is 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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the data returned, and the signed-in dependency. It does not describe a structured return shape, but the description's mention of 'label' and 'address' is sufficient for this simple case.

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%, so the locale parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds a small amount of context by linking the locale to output labels ('in their language'), but does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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?

The description names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('the pages of gemalli.com'), and states the output content ('label in their language and the address'). It is clearly distinct from the sibling commerce tools, which are about products, manufacturers, and inquiries.

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?

The description gives explicit guidance: 'Use it before offering a link, so you point at a page that exists rather than guessing.' It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended call context is clear.

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