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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: it confirms no read/write on org stock, specifies deterministic alias matching with an example, and describes the output shape. No contradiction 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?

The description is three sentences with no fluff: purpose, output, behavior, and alternative. The core purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence earns its place without 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?

With an output schema present, return values are covered. The description provides all necessary context for correct invocation: what it maps, how matching works, what it doesn't touch, and where to go for taxonomy browsing. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to use it correctly.

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%, and the schema already documents the lines array with constraints (maxLength, maxItems, empty/whitespace skipping). The description adds a usage example but does not provide meaning beyond what the schema states, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Map free-text gear lines') and the target resource ('public Soundcheck inventory catalog'), with a concrete example of alias matching. It also distinguishes itself from search_inventory by explicitly naming it as the browsing tool, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance on when not to use the tool ('Does not read or write organization inventory stock') and names an alternative ('Use search_inventory to browse the taxonomy'). It doesn't cover all siblings, but the key distinction is made, giving an agent a clear decision path.

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