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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description explains exactly what is destroyed and why it is not idempotent: the edit link stops working once saved. It further clarifies which capabilities survive ('Its share link keeps working') and that subsequent changes go through the returned list_id, plus the sign-in requirement — genuine behavioral value 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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what it does, what breaks, what survives, what sign-in is needed. The state-change caveat is front-loaded in the second sentence where it matters most. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by telling the agent that the answer returns a list_id and market-scoped links, and it covers the irreversible consequence of the call. For a two-parameter migration tool with full annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs before invoking is missing.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description's wording for edit_token ('edit link, or the token at the end of it') is essentially identical to the schema text. The market parameter is not mentioned at all in the description, so no meaning is added beyond structured fields — baseline 3.

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 verb and resource ('moves an anonymous wishlist into the signed-in shopper's Plendio account') plus the input needed, which cleanly separates it from siblings like create_wishlist, get_wishlist, and add_to_my_wishlist. An agent can classify this as the anonymous-to-account migration operation without opening the schema.

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 establishes the preconditions clearly: the list must be anonymous, and the call 'Requires sign-in.' The 'anonymous wishlist' framing implicitly excludes already-owned lists (which would use update_my_wishlist), but no sibling is named explicitly and no when-not-to-use exclusion is spelled out.

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