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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the output is a 'short guide', hinting at the informational nature, but says nothing about the return format or how the model filter changes the guidance.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool is followed by when to use it. Slightly awkward phrasing in the model enumeration but no wasted 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?

For a single-param, low-complexity onboarding tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, triggers, and param meaning adequately. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must carry the param burden, and it does: it enumerates the selling models (wholesale, online arbitrage, private label, brand owners, agencies) that map to the enum values, giving each a business meaning beyond the raw enum strings.

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 states a specific function: a guide to what Webotee can do and which tools to use, scoped by selling model. This clearly sets it apart from the ~80 task-specific siblings as the orientation/router entry point, though it never names a sibling it replaces.

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?

It gives three concrete triggering conditions: at session start, when the user asks 'what can you do with Webotee', and when they only know one tool. Strong when-to-use guidance, but no explicit when-not or named alternative.

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