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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing that prices are nonbinding estimates pending factory costing and that checkout/production are disabled — a caution an agent could not derive from the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no filler: the enumeration of returned artifacts comes first, the nonbinding-price caveat second. The artifact list is long but each item earns its place by telling the agent what the response contains.

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 carries the burden of describing return content, and it does so by enumerating the template artifacts and pricing tiers. It stops short of describing result shape or ordering, but for a zero-arg read-only listing this is close to sufficient.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly makes no parameter claims and instead spends its words on scope and caveats.

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 (list) and resource (FRW custom jersey templates), then enumerates the artifacts returned: print pieces, sublimation modes, fonts, patterns, sizes, volume tiers. It is clearly distinguishable from list_scarf_templates by the 'jersey' scope, but it never explicitly names or contrasts the sibling tools it could be confused with.

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: an agent can infer this is the browse step that precedes prepare_jersey_design, but the description never says so or states when not to call it. The 'checkout and production are not enabled' caveat hints at downstream limits without routing to an alternative.

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