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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that plan-gated items are returned with tier markings rather than hidden, that certain catalog attributes (origin, altitude, processing, varietal) are absent, and that roast level and decaf status come from the blend. This is valuable behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the main purpose is in the first sentence, followed by two short, relevant behavioral notes. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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?

The description covers what the tool returns, behavioral visibility of plan-gated items, and an important data-limitation caveat. An output schema exists, so return structure does not need to be spelled out. It could be more complete with explicit guidance about when to prefer this over roastify_get_catalog_product or roastify_get_blend, but it is otherwise 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?

Schema description coverage is only 50%: npub is documented but dpop_token has no explanation. The tool description adds nothing about either parameter, so it does not compensate for the undocumented token or clarify how the billing-related npub is used.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Browse the Roastify catalog' and clarifies it returns 'products and coffee blends together.' This clearly distinguishes it from narrow sibling tools like roastify_get_catalog_product or roastify_get_blend, stating both the resource and the scope.

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 establishes a clear usage context: this is the tool for browsing the full catalog, and the phrase 'products and coffee blends together' signals it is not for fetching a single product or blend. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it stops short of a 5.

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