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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the trailing "Read-only; nothing is changed" largely repeats structured data rather than adding to it. What the description does add is behavioral definition of the filter — which products count as lacking a 'usable' description, image, or allergen declaration — though 'usable' itself is left undefined. No mention of result size, ordering, or scope limits (e.g. only the caller's own restaurant).

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the substantive filtering rule. The second sentence is the only slightly wasteful part, since it restates readOnlyHint already present in annotations.

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 zero-parameter, read-only audit with no output schema, the description covers what is being audited and why an item qualifies. Remaining gaps (return shape, ordering, restaurant scoping) are minor at this complexity level, though a hint about the result being a list of products would round it out.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond the implicit scoping to 'your restaurant'. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool; the description correctly signals that no arguments are needed.

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?

Uses a specific verb ("List") plus a precise resource ("active products of your restaurant") and defines the exact inclusion criterion: missing description, image, or allergen declaration. An agent can immediately tell this is an audit of incomplete menu items rather than a general menu listing. It stops short of naming the closest sibling (get_restaurant_menu / search_products) for contrast.

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 by the word "audit" and by the stated filter, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, and no pointer to the natural alternatives or follow-ups (get_restaurant_menu for the full menu, draft_product_description for fixing gaps). The agent must infer the workflow.

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