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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds useful context about the content returned (identity, browser capabilities, privacy, documentation links) and the non-conversion boundary, but it does not describe response format or any edge conditions.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and resource list, then follows with a clarifying negative constraint, making every word useful.

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 simple, zero-parameter read-only tool, this description is complete. It states exactly what information will be returned and what the tool will not do, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly without an output schema.

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 zero parameters, and the schema is empty, so parameter documentation is not needed. The description adds no param-specific meaning, but the baseline for a zero-parameter tool is appropriately high.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and identifies a precise resource ('mdprint product identity, browser capabilities, privacy and documentation links'), giving a clear enumeration of what the tool returns. The negative statement 'Does not convert documents' further disambiguates it from conversion-related operations, though not from the direct siblings.

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 implies this tool is for reading product metadata and explicitly says it does not convert documents, which signals a boundary. However, it does not mention when to prefer this over siblings like get_docs, get_example, or list_examples, leaving the selection to inference.

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