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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that retail prices are always included, that customerKey enables wholesale pricing and one-tap checkout, and that delivery is Thailand-only. These are meaningful behavioral details beyond the tool's name and schema, though it stops short of discussing output format or failure modes.

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 four sentences, front-loads the primary purpose, and then adds only the essential conditional logic and delivery constraint. Every sentence contributes actionable information with no filler or 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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential returns, optional parameter behavior, and a critical geographic restriction. It does not explicitly compare against search_fish or other sibling tools, but it is sufficiently complete for a read-only catalog retrieval tool with two optional parameters.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by clarifying which type of user should pass each optional parameter and what behavior changes when they do. This goes beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions by linking them to customer types and checkout behavior.

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 identifies a specific verb and resource: 'Get GYOTAK's full fish catalog.' It enumerates the key returned data (real-time availability, retail prices, freshness tiers, traceability records), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. The word 'full' also helps distinguish it from sibling search-oriented tools like search_fish.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to pass customerKey vs lineUserId, and it clearly states that international delivery is not accepted. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when to prefer search_fish, but the contextual usage instructions are clear enough for an agent to invoke the tool appropriately.

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