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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds only scope qualifiers ('approved', 'public MCP surface') and no additional behavioral traits such as pagination, result ordering, or rate limits, so it provides modest but not substantial value beyond the annotations.

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 a single, tight sentence with no filler. The key qualifier 'every' and the public-scope boundary are front-loaded, making the tool's purpose immediately apparent.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only list operation that has an output schema and safety annotations, the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It identifies the resource, the exhaustive scope, and the availability boundary without missing critical information.

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 has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because parameter semantics are a non-issue for this no-argument tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a well-defined resource ('approved commerce-data dataset') and scope ('public MCP surface'). The word 'every' clearly signals exhaustive enumeration, distinguishing it from search_trade_datasets and the get_* sibling tools without needing to inspect schemas.

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 phrase 'every approved...available through the public MCP surface' clearly establishes when to call: when the agent needs the complete catalog of accessible datasets. It does not explicitly name search_trade_datasets as the alternative for filtered queries, but the exhaustive wording makes the intended use case unambiguous.

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