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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds error behavior details (never raises protocol error, returns error object with fix guidance) and reaffirms idempotency/read-only nature, providing valuable context beyond 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?

Description is well-structured with a front-loaded purpose, example, usage guidance, error handling, and idempotency note. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description compensates with a JSON output example. It covers licensing, error behavior, retry safety, and distinction from sibling tools. Sufficient for a simple 1-parameter tool.

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 a clear parameter description. The description adds an inline example of typical input, which reinforces parameter usage but doesn't add substantial new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 with slight improvement for contextual example.

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 clearly states it loads a full product with persona and all paid skills, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_full_skill and list_products, making purpose unambiguous.

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 states when to use 'when the caller wants the whole product' and when not—for single skill or free look—naming specific alternative tools (get_full_skill, list_products, get_free_skill). Also mentions license requirement.

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