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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds critical behavioral info: error handling pattern ('never raises a protocol error — it returns {"error": ...}') and reinforces idempotency/read-only. 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?

Starts with a clear one-line summary, then example, then usage clarification, then error details. Every sentence adds value, though there is minor repetition (e.g., 'Returns persona plus every skill' echoes the opening). Overall well-structured and not overly verbose.

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 tool with one parameter, complete annotations, and an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage, error behavior, and return format. It also provides a concrete example and error examples. No gaps remain for typical usage.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds value by providing an example input ('{"slug": "smb-ops-desk"}') and clarifying that the slug comes from list_products, which is helpful context beyond the schema's description.

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?

Clearly states 'Load one product in full: its persona plus every paid skill' with specific verb (Load) and resource (one product). Explicitly distinguishes from siblings: 'Not for a single skill (get_full_skill) and not for a free look, which list_products and get_free_skill provide.'

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 to ('Not for a single skill… not for a free look'). Also mentions PREMIUM license as a usage condition and provides error recovery guidance ('safe to retry').

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