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

Annotations declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds that it's a cheap operation, returns an opaque hash and a specific structure, and is for change detection. No contradiction with annotations. It provides context beyond the annotations, like the meaning of the return value and its purpose.

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 concise but thorough. It covers purpose, usage, return format, and example in a single paragraph. Each sentence serves a function, with no redundancy. Slightly long but still efficient, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 simple tool with one parameter, the description is comprehensive. It explains the purpose, usage scenario, return structure, and provides an example. It also gives a warning about stale references. Given the simplicity and existing annotations, this is complete.

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 schema already fully describes the single parameter (tenant_id) with a clear description. The description reinforces it with an example call, but doesn't add new semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate for high schema coverage with no extra insight.

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 tool's purpose: returning a fingerprint of the catalog for a tenant for change detection. It distinguishes itself from catalog search by framing it as a cheap check and referencing catalog_search results, so the agent understands this is not the same as retrieving catalog content.

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 explains when to use it (before acting on product IDs) and what to do if the version differs (re-run catalog_search). It provides explicit guidance on the workflow and mentions the alternative catalog_search, making it clear when this tool is appropriate.

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