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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'READ-ONLY' largely repeats structured data, but the description adds real context: which catalog is queried (data-hub), the hard cap of 20 EANs per call, and that nothing changes on either side. It stops short of describing cost or latency of the lookup.

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?

Front-loads the safety qualifier and packs the matching logic, limits, and output categories into three dense sentences. Minor waste from repeating 'READ-ONLY' and 'Changes nothing on either side', which say the same thing.

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 previews the result shape (matched, unmatched, missing SKU/EAN). What remains thin is store_id semantics and whether results are paginated or sampled beyond the limit parameter.

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 75%. The description reinforces account_id (Amazon outpost) and lookup_ean (EAN search, 20-per-call cap), adding a bit beyond the schema, but store_id and limit are not addressed at all in the description, leaving that gap to the schema alone. Baseline 3 fits at this coverage level.

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 — maps WooCommerce products to the Amazon catalog for a given outpost — and clarifies the matching key (SKU, optionally EAN/GTIN). An agent can distinguish it from woo_list_products or search_catalog by the mapping semantics, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 (reconcile WooCommerce SKUs against Amazon listings) and the lookup_ean flag's role is described, but there is no explicit 'use this when' guidance, no prerequisites beyond account_id coming from list_clients, and no alternatives such as woo_hub_query called out.

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