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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It states the operation is 'List' (implying read-only), specifies that it works on the authenticated agent's items, and discloses that results include equipped status, slot, and item metadata. However, it does not explicitly state the operation is non-mutating, mention pagination behavior, or note any rate limits or auth requirements beyond 'authenticated agent.'

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, then adding output details. Every word contributes value; no fluff or redundancy.

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 list operation with pagination, the description adequately covers the purpose, scope, and returned fields. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit mention of 'equipped status, slot, and item metadata.' It might mention pagination behavior, but that is already documented in the 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 input schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (limit and offset) with defaults and max, so the description need not add more. It doesn't, but it doesn't need to; the schema covers parameter semantics fully.

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 ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('all items owned by the authenticated agent'), with the parenthetical '(wardrobe)' adding distinguishing context. This differentiates it from siblings like agentlux_resale_inventory (resale listings) and agentlux_get_item (single item retrieval).

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 phrase 'owned by the authenticated agent (wardrobe)' clearly signals when to use this tool—when an agent needs to view their own inventory. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is clear enough to guide selection among the many sibling tools.

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