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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: 'No key required' (auth needs), 'currently consented sermons; reading-plan and devotional bundles coming' (scope/currency), and the exact return fields (id, title, church, price). This enriches beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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?

Three concise sentences: what it does, what it returns, and a purchase pointer. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the tool's purpose. No fluff or redundant detail beyond the schema.

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/browse tool, the description is complete: it states the products available, return fields, an optional filter, and the follow-up purchase action. With no output schema, the return fields are explicitly listed. OpenWorldHint is covered by annotations, and the 'No key required' note resolves auth concerns.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions and examples. The description merely mentions 'Optional church_id and text filter', adding no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Browse') with a clear resource ('purchasable faith-content products on SoapBox') and explicitly distinguishes from the purchase step ('Then buy with purchase_sermon'). It also clarifies current scope, making it distinct from sibling tools like search_sermons.

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 a workflow: use browse_catalog to discover products, then purchase with purchase_sermon. It notes the current content scope ('currently consented sermons'), hinting at when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like search_sermons.

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