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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only that results include photos and that the tool is intended for internal views, leaving behavioral questions such as what is returned when ids or storeIds are omitted and whether results are paginated unaddressed.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the access restriction, then the purpose, then the alternative — no filler and nothing buried. The only waste is that the purpose sentence duplicates the title verbatim rather than adding detail.

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 tool with three undocumented, all-optional parameters and no output schema, the description does not say enough to invoke it confidently: it never explains what the ids/storeIds filter, what an empty call returns, or the shape of a "card." Annotations cover safety, and the alternative is named, but the invocation semantics are essentially left to guesswork.

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?

All three parameters (ids, storeIds, workspaceId) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about any of them — not the id format, not whether storeIds narrows or expands the result set, and not the role of workspaceId. Since no parameters are required, an agent also has no idea what happens when the arguments are omitted, so the description fails to compensate for the schema 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?

The description names the resource concretely ("Product cards with their photos") and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling readProducts, which is the tool for finding products. It stops short of saying the cards are returned for the given ids/storeIds, so the exact operation is implied rather than stated, but an agent can still tell what it returns and how it differs from readProducts.

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?

It gives both a when-not-to-use rule ("For Kooga's views only, of no use to call otherwise") and a named alternative ("To find products, use readProducts"), which is more routing guidance than most definitions provide. The exclusion hinges on an internal concept ("Kooga's views") that an outside agent cannot evaluate, so the guidance is clear in intent but partly unactionable.

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