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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of describing behavior. It discloses the output fields (price, dimensions, recommended room, deep link) and implies the tool is read-only by nature, but it doesn't explicitly state that it returns a list, how filtering works, or any side effects. The description adds some context but lacks full transparency.

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 a single, compact sentence that includes both the purpose and the key output attributes. There is no wasted language, and it is front-loaded with the main concept ('device catalog'). It is appropriately concise for a simple list tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke it correctly: it identifies the resource, its content fields, and the use case. It doesn't explain return format or edge cases, but for a straightforward catalog listing, this is sufficient.

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 schema description covers 100% of the parameter (room) with an explanation of filtering by recommended room. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions 'recommended room' as an output field, not as a parameter. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 identifies the tool as a device catalog with specific content fields (price, dimensions, recommended room, deep link) and its use case (for placing in house rooms). It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', but the name and context make the purpose clear. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_archetypes or parts_list.

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 a use case ('for bim.house etc. to place in rooms'), which implies when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among the sibling tools. The guidance is implied through the stated use case rather than explicit instructions.

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