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

Explicitly states it is read-only, returns matching products with price, availability, and endpoint metadata; clarifies no cart, checkout, order, payment, credential, or merchant mutation occurs. Annotations (readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false) align with the description, so no contradiction. This is a model of behavioral 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 concise but informative, using clear bullet-style clauses. The schema is well-structured with nested objects and clear descriptions. The additional text explaining when to call and what does not happen is efficient and not verbose.

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?

The description provides full context: it states read-only semantics, what the tool returns, what it doesn't do, and how it fits into a workflow (use lookup_catalog when IDs are known, get_product after selecting). It covers usage scenarios shortages (like knowing product ID) and highlights non-mutations. The schema explains required fields and optional fields. This is highly complete.

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 provides detailed descriptions for each parameter: meta explains it's for capability negotiation and is read-only; catalog describes its role as a search request with query, context, filters, signals, and pagination. The 'query' parameter has examples and pagination has min/max and descriptions. The schema description coverage is 100% per the metadata, and the description provides additional examples and clarifies optional fields. Parameters are well-documented.

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?

Title and description clearly state the tool's purpose: searching Misfit machine products. It explicitly mentions it is read-only product discovery and says to call it first when the product ID is unknown, with clear next steps (lookup_catalog, get_product).

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?

Provides strong usage context: call this when product ID is unknown, use lookup_catalog when IDs are known, and use get_product after selecting a product. Also explains the purpose of the tool in the discovery flow, making usage guidelines excellent.

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