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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond that: it clarifies that the edit link is not accepted and that title/notes are user-authored text, which is useful provenance context for downstream handling.

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?

Three tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the return payload and identifier forms, with the read-only and identifier constraints immediately after. No filler and no repetition.

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 two-parameter, read-only lookup with a full output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: accepted input, excluded input, and the nature of the returned content. No meaningful gap remains.

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% and the description merely echoes the accepted identifier forms already documented in the schema ('share link, or the share id at the end of it'). The implicit market default is not elaborated beyond what the schema states.

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?

Specific verb (Returns) plus resource (a Plendio wishlist) with the accepted identifier forms and a full enumeration of the returned payload (title, items with notes and prices, product page urls). This clearly separates it from siblings like create_wishlist and add_to_wishlist.

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?

Establishes the read-only retrieval context and explicitly excludes the edit link as input, which routes the caller to the share link/id. It does not name alternative siblings or state when to prefer this over e.g. get_product, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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