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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive, so the description is free to add what the annotation cannot: the exact return payload (endpoint_id, method, path, summary, required scope) and the callable flag with a reason when the connection cannot call an endpoint. That callable/permission detail is genuinely behavioral context 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and the intent-based framing, then the return shape and downstream wiring. No filler or repetition of the title.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly takes on the burden of describing return fields and the callable status, and it links results to the follow-up tools. It is essentially complete for a read-only search tool.

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 100%, so limit and method are fully documented in the schema and the enum is self-explanatory. The description's example intents ('inventory adjustment', 'list purchase orders') do add some meaning for the query parameter, but not enough to exceed the baseline for a fully documented schema.

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?

States a specific verb (searches) and a precise resource (the SKU.io REST API reference) scoped by intent, with concrete examples of query phrasing. That clearly separates it from siblings like search_products or search_purchase_orders, which search data rather than the endpoint catalog.

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?

Gives example queries and explicitly routes the result forward: an endpoint_id found here works with describe_endpoint, api_read and api_write. It does not, however, state when to skip this tool or how it relates to search_products, so the when-not guidance is only implied.

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