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

Beyond the annotations (which already declare a safe, idempotent read) it discloses that no key is needed, that the response is structured as one block per topic, and that some content carries exceptions (every non-100 mm size is a manual exception; a metal caveat on mounting). The email-fulfilment boundary for stands/badges is a genuinely useful behavioral detail. It stops short of describing the block layout or how the destination model is returned, keeping it at 4.

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 purpose and the sibling routing are correctly front-loaded, but the middle is a single run-on sentence carrying product specifications (0.85 mm double-laminated matte waterproof PVC, 100 mm round and square) that belong in the tool's output rather than its definition. The content is not padded with filler, but the structure makes it harder to scan than it needs to be.

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 must convey what comes back, and it does so block by block, including the dashboard and destination model. For a one-optional-enum, read-only lookup, an agent has everything needed to decide and invoke correctly.

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 100% with an enum, so the parameter is already self-documenting; the description adds only the semantic pairing of block names to content and the omit-means-everything rule. That adds slight orientation value on top of the schema but is largely restating it, so it sits just above the baseline.

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 full product facts" names a concrete resource, and the description then enumerates exactly which blocks come back (discs, mounting, stands/badges, shipping, plus the Redirect Dashboard and destination model). It is clearly separated from get_discovery (orientation) and get_quote (pricing), so an agent can route to it without opening any 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 when to use this tool and names two explicit alternatives with their selecting conditions: get_discovery for first orientation, get_quote for pricing at a quantity. It also adds an exclusion inside the content itself – stands and badges come "from the team by email, not ordered through this server" – which heads off a wrong action.

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