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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior context: only live SKUs are listed, payloads are withheld until purchase, and recipe.book-table entries are docs that do not trigger a reservation.

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?

Front-loads the returned fields in one sentence, then adds two short qualifiers about payloads and recipe.book-table. Every sentence earns its place, though the phrase 'what a purchase does not include' is slightly abstract.

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 and no parameters, the description carries the burden of describing what comes back, and it does so (SKUs, prices, descriptions, exclusions). An agent can invoke this correctly, though it never states format or pagination.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; the 4 baseline applies. The description instead spends its words on return content, which is appropriate here.

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 (live BotSupply SKUs) plus the fields surfaced: credit prices, short descriptions, and purchase exclusions. It also differentiates itself from the sibling purchase tool by noting payloads are withheld and that recipe.book-table is documentation, not a reservation.

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: 'Payloads stay behind purchase' hints that purchase is the route to payloads, and the recipe note implies this is a read-only reference. There is no explicit 'use this vs. purchase/create_checkout' routing statement or precondition guidance.

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