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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are paginated, but it largely restates the marketplace fallback behavior ('if omitted, en-US gets amazon.com, else amazon.se') that the marketplace schema description already spells out, including the never-errors promise. It says nothing about page size, result shape, or how far the curated set extends.

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?

Three compact sentences with the resource and its key routing rule front-loaded, and the sibling boundary placed last where it belongs. 'OpenAPI: getCatalog' is a low-value pointer and 'curated party gift starters' is compressed to the point of ambiguity. No filler, but also no wasted elaboration that would have paid off.

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?

Placeholder

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 38% across 8 parameters, so the description must carry weight and it only really explains marketplace/locale interplay ('English, USD budgets'), which the schema also documents. The two enum filters (occasion, giftCategory/giftCategories) and the q/limit/offset controls get no semantic treatment, though their defaults and enum values make them largely self-explanatory. Partial compensation, not full.

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 names a specific resource ('curated party gift starters') with its pagination trait, so an agent knows it is a browsing/catalog tool rather than a mutation. It also carves out a boundary against the sibling search_gifts with 'Search remains primary discovery', though it never states what a 'starter' actually is. The verb is only implied by the name, but the resource and scope are concrete enough to distinguish it from list_marketplaces or get_wishlist.

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?

'Search remains primary discovery' implies catalog browsing is the secondary path, which is genuine routing guidance toward search_gifts. However, there is no explicit when-to-use condition (e.g., 'use to populate an empty wishlist with pre-vetted ideas') and no exclusion telling the agent when not to bother with it. The marketplace default rule is operational, not usage guidance.

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