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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context: catalog entries do not confer generation authority, and pagination is stable-ID cursor based with a default of 50 and max of 100 — details not present in 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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, a scope caveat, and pagination mechanics. No filler and no repeated schema/annotation content.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and both parameters plus the read-only semantic are covered. An agent has enough to call it correctly, though the absence of guidance on using the returned cursor/IDs is a minor gap.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load — and it does, explaining that cursor is a stable-ID cursor, that limit defaults to 50, and that the maximum is 100. It does not describe cursor opacity or how to obtain the first cursor, keeping it below 5.

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: 'Read configured fonts available to this tenant', which is unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling catalog tools by resource name alone. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with siblings like catalogs_models or catalogs_voices, so not a 5.

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?

Usage is implied (a read listing of tenant-configured fonts), and the caveat that catalog entries do not grant generation authority hints at what this list is not for. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus looking up a font elsewhere or what to do with the results.

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