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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'active' and workspace-scope context, but leaves important behavior vague: what 'active' means, whether 'today' is a hard time window, and what the result looks like. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 two sentences: the first states purpose, the second gives concrete user-phrase triggers. It is front-loaded and generally efficient, though the list of example queries is slightly redundant with the closing 'any MAP-enforcement question.'

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 tool with 18 optional filters, no output schema, and sparse parameter descriptions, this description is incomplete for confident invocation. It covers purpose and routing, but not result contents, filter combination, date formats, pagination, or the exact semantics of 'active' and 'today.'

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 has 18 optional parameters but only 39% schema description coverage. The description provides no parameter-level guidance at all—no mention of filtering by brand, retailer, date, price, violation percentage, or product title. It does not compensate for the large undocumented filter surface.

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 states the operation ('Show'), the resource ('active MAP violations'), expands the acronym, and scopes it to 'products in the workspace.' It is specific and easy to distinguish from unrelated sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name a contrasting sibling.

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 trigger phrases ('MAP violations', 'who is selling below MAP', 'price violations today', 'are there any MAP breaches') and generalizes to 'any MAP-enforcement question,' giving clear routing guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or name an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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