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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: results are scoped to active public catalogs with listings, paging is bounded, ordering is by seller id, and continued paging is via nextCursor.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then paging, then the alternative tool. Every sentence carries distinct information and none restates the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values and cursor field naming need not be re-explained here, and the description covers scope, ordering and paging. The one remaining hole is the limit parameter's meaning and bounds, which is relevant given a maximum of 100.

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 coverage is 50%: cursor is documented in the schema, while limit has only type/default/max/min and no description. The description reinforces paging via 'follow nextCursor' and 'bounded page', but never explains what limit controls, its default, or its cap, so it only partially compensates for the gap.

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 (browse active public grower catalogs) plus the return shape (bounded page of seller summaries ordered by seller id). It also names the single-profile sibling, so an agent can distinguish list-vs-get without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to get_public_profile when one grower's full profile is needed, which is the main ambiguity for this tool. It does not address when to prefer list_public_listings or search_public_listings, but that distinction is implied by the resource (profiles vs listings).

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