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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: no key required, the exactness of catalog IDs, and the expectation that an unfiltered call comes first. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The essential facts—what is listed, how to copy IDs, and the initial call pattern—are packed efficiently.

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 catalog tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: returned fields, ID handling, grouping, and the recommendation to start unfiltered.

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% and the existing parameter description already explains that group must come from a previous show_catalog response. The description adds only the 'call with no group first' hint, so it does not meaningfully expand on 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: 'Lists every piece Roomproof knows' with an exact set of returned fields. It also differentiates from related tools by noting that custom pieces from read_product do not need the catalog, so an agent can tell when this tool is relevant.

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 explicit operational guidance: call with no group first, and copy catalog IDs exactly. It also states an exclusion ('Custom pieces ... do not need the catalog'), though it does not name a direct alternative tool or fully explain when to prefer siblings.

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