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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds that the return value is viewable images plus grade and condition notes, which matters since no output schema exists. It says nothing about what happens when a unit has no photos, or any size/count limits on retrieval.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the when-to-use cue. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 usefully characterizes the response (images plus grade and condition notes). The remaining gap is max_photos, whose purpose and default go unexplained anywhere in the definition.

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?

Only graded_id is documented, and only in the schema (pointing back to get_product graded_options). The description never mentions max_photos, which has a 6 default and a 1-10 range but no schema description, so half the parameters carry no meaning anywhere.

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+resource: photos of one graded unit's cosmetic condition, with the scope ('marks, dents, scratches') made explicit. It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_product or search_products, which do not return condition imagery.

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?

'Use before putting a graded unit in a basket' gives a concrete trigger tied to the basket workflow and implicitly pairs with create_basket/basket_link. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when NOT to call it (e.g., new vs graded items).

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