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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds valuable behavioral details: 'never raises a protocol error — it returns {"error": ...}' and 'Every call is read-only and idempotent, so after correcting the input it is always safe to retry.' This goes beyond the 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?

The description is concise (~150 words) and well-structured: purpose first, then a typical input/output example, usage guidance, and error handling. Every sentence adds value with 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 simple input schema (one required parameter), full annotations, existing output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage, error behavior, and an example. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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% with a clear description of the 'slug' parameter. The description adds a concrete example ('inbox-zero-assistant') and reinforces that the slug comes from 'search_catalog', providing extra context beyond 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?

The description explicitly states 'Load one product in full: persona plus every skill's instructions', which is a specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes from siblings by naming 'get_full_skill' and 'get_full_kit', making the purpose clear and 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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use when the caller wants the whole product. Not for a single skill (get_full_skill) and not for a bundle of products (get_full_kit).' It also notes the tool is PREMIUM (paid plan), giving a clear usage context.

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