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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination behavior (via limit/offset and next_offset), return shape, cost implications (thousands of items, search_products is cheaper), and explicitly states that live on-chain minted count is not here but in get_drop_details. This is thorough and goes beyond basic expectations.

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 front-loaded with the action and scope in the first sentence. It is longer than minimal but every sentence earns its place by addressing usage, return format, and scope limitations. Slightly verbose but well-structured and readable.

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 browse tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: purpose, return object fields, pagination mechanics, alternatives, and next steps. It also notes what information is intentionally absent (minted count). Complete and actionable.

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 good parameter descriptions. The tool description adds meaningful context: it explains the pagination pattern (pass next_offset back) and highlights the large catalogue size, making the limit parameter's purpose clearer. This enriches the schema without redundancy.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'List active RRG listings, paginated, optionally scoped by brand_slug.' It uses a specific verb (list), identifies the resource (RRG listings), and differentiates from siblings by mentioning search_products for specific lookups and get_drop_details for minted counts.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use when exploring the catalogue without a specific item in mind' and 'If you already have a product name, SKU, brand, or descriptive keyword, call search_products FIRST.' It also recommends next steps (get_drop_details + initiate_agent_purchase), making the tool's place in the workflow clear.

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