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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotent, non-destructive, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: no ranking ('no ranking beyond matched or not'), a hard 10-result cap, requirement of an MCP API key (Authorization: Bearer), and scoping to the team's own Library (never cross-team). This exceeds annotation coverage and provides operational expectations.

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 well-structured and concise. It opens with the core purpose, then adds usage nuances and auth requirements in a succinct second paragraph. Every sentence contributes value, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and no output schema, the description fully covers what is returned (id, article_number, name, supplier), the 10-result limit, the lack of ranking, the auth requirement, and the cross-team exclusion. It also positions the tool within the workflow, making it complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 100%, but the description enriches both parameters. For query, it explains the substring match behavior and the 'leave empty to browse' use case. For api_key, it specifies the format ('kubik_mcp_...') and that it is required. This adds meaning beyond the schema's basic property descriptions.

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 clearly states the verb 'Searches' and the resource 'your team's kubik.tools Library for article profiles', specifying the search criteria (article number or name, case-insensitive substring match) and the output fields (id, article_number, name, supplier). It also differentiates from siblings by explicitly naming resolve_quantities as the next step, making the tool's role distinct.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use resolve_quantities once you've found the article you want to resolve a quantity against; use this tool first to find its exact article_number/id if you only have a rough description.' Also explains the browse behavior with empty query. The tool's context is clear, with no ambiguity about its place among sibling tools.

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