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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: what each returned item contains and the handoff of codes into quote_website. It says nothing about result-set size or pagination behavior beyond the schema's limit default.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and record shape, then filtering, then the sibling handoff. No filler or restatement of the name.

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 summarizes the fields of each demo record and the code handoff to quote_website. It is nearly complete for a read-only listing tool; the only gap is guidance on result volume and whether the returned set is truncated by limit.

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 50%, and the description names all three filters and clarifies that query is free-text sector wording. However, it does not disambiguate 'group' (fixed sector verticals like saglik, hukuk-finans) from the free-text sector 'query', which is the main ambiguity an agent would face with two similar-looking filters.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List ... design demos') plus scope ('live website and e-commerce'), and it describes the record shape (stable code like WS-012 / ET-007, sector, preview URL). That is enough to separate it from siblings such as get_page or quote_website without opening a schema.

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 states the filtering modes (category, group, free-text sector query) and names a concrete downstream alternative: a website demo code can be passed to quote_website. It does not say when NOT to use this tool or how it relates to get_page for previewing a demo, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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