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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds genuine context by disclosing the sort order (most-recently-saved), but says nothing about pagination behavior or whether results are capped.

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?

A single, well-formed sentence with the resource, scope, and ordering front-loaded. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations fully cover safety semantics. The remaining gap is that the two undocumented parameters (limit, query) are left ambiguous for an agent trying to control page size or filter.

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 description coverage is only 50%: countryCode and languageCode are documented in the schema, but 'limit' (default 50, max 100) and 'query' (maxLength 200) carry no description anywhere. The tool description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the uncovered half.

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 verb and resource ('List the authenticated customer favorites') plus the ordering guarantee ('most-recently-saved order'). It reads clearly against siblings favorites_add and favorites_remove, though it never names or contrasts them 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?

Usage is only implied by 'authenticated customer favorites' — an agent can infer this is the read-side of the favorites family, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives like favorites_add/favorites_remove.

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