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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is the behavioral context: the catalog is a fixed size of 30 and results are paginated. It does not, however, disclose ordering, default page size, or whether cursor is required for subsequent pages.

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?

One front-loaded sentence naming the resource, the size, the returned fields, and the pagination trait. No filler, nothing redundant against the name.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return fields and flags pagination, which is the key thing an agent needs for a list endpoint. Minor gaps remain around default limit, maximum page size, and ordering.

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?

Schema coverage is 50% – only cursor is documented in the schema, while limit has no description and no stated default or bound. '(paginated)' hints that limit/cursor drive paging but adds no semantics beyond the schema; it does not compensate for the undocumented limit parameter.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: the full catalog of 30 procedures, plus the fields returned (slugs, display names, categories, CPT codes). This is distinguishable from the singular siblings get_procedure_details and resolve_procedure, though the differentiation is implied by 'full catalog' rather than stated explicitly.

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 'the full CostKits catalog' implies bulk enumeration and therefore when this is preferable to a detail lookup, but it never names an alternative or states an exclusion. Usage must be inferred from the sibling set rather than read in the description.

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