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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds valuable context by stating the tool never returns invented inventory or SKUs, reinforcing the openWorldHint=false and increasing trustworthiness. No contradictions with 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?

Two concise sentences: first defines purpose and scope, second adds an important constraint. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema (not shown), the description is minimal. It covers the core purpose and category constraint but omits details on other parameters and return format. Adequate for simple cases but lacks depth for complex parameter usage.

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 0%, yet the description only hints at the 'category' parameter by listing its valid values. Other parameters (channel, packaging, destination, contentAssets, proofRequirements) are not explained, leaving the agent to infer their purpose from names alone. This is insufficient to compensate for the missing schema 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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves 'source-linked procurement checks' for specific categories (bracelets, beads, accessories, raw materials). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on procurement guidance for these exact categories and explicitly states what it does not return (invented inventory/SKUs).

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?

Description specifies which categories to use and warns that adjacent categories are advisory only, providing some usage context. However, it does not mention when to use alternatives or provide explicit when-not conditions relative to sibling tools.

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