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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint; the description reinforces these by stating 'every call is read-only and idempotent' and adds detailed error handling behavior: 'never raises a protocol error — it returns {"error": ...}'. This goes beyond annotations to fully disclose the tool's behavior.

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?

The description is well-structured with the main purpose first, followed by return format, usage guidance, exclusions, and error handling. It is slightly verbose (e.g., the error sentence is long) but every sentence adds value. Front-loading is effective, making it easy to scan.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no input complexity), the description fully covers all necessary aspects: return format, typical output size, how to use outputs, exclusions, error behavior, and safety guarantees. With an output schema present, the description does not need to detail return values further, but it provides a clear summary anyway.

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?

The tool has no parameters (0 params), so baseline is 4. The description confirms 'takes no arguments' and describes the typical input/output, adding clarity beyond the empty schema. Although schema coverage is 100%, the description's extra detail (e.g., 'typical input {} returns a list of 30 product objects') justifies the baseline score.

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 explicitly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'every product in the Business Suite line' with its included skills. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by noting that it is not for keyword search across the whole catalog (search_catalog) and not for instructions (get_free_skill), making the 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?

The description gives clear guidance: 'Use when the caller wants to see what this server covers' and explicitly states when not to use it ('Not for keyword search...' and 'not for instructions the caller can act on'). It also directs the user to alternative tools (get_free_skill, get_full_product, etc.) after obtaining slug values.

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