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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the description's added value is the stability warning ('Preview API... may change without a version bump') and the required scope 'products:read' — both real behavioral context an agent needs before building on it. It does not describe failure modes, but the substantive extras clear the bar beyond 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?

A single compact sentence with the preview-status warning front-loaded and no filler. The semicolon-packed phrasing is dense but every clause carries information.

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 no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description should say at least roughly what a returned range contains or how the IDs relate to a location. It covers safety, auth scope and stability well, but leaves the parameters and return shape entirely to inference.

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%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it never mentions locationId or colourBarRangeId. The only guidance comes from schema patterns (loc_, cbr_), leaving the description adding nothing about required parameters.

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 it returns 'One supplier range and its catalog settings', which implicitly conveys a single-resource fetch distinct from the sibling list_colour_bar_ranges. It does not use an explicit verb like 'get/retrieve' or name a sibling, but the singular scope plus the exclusion of 'personal recipes or colour mixes' makes the target resource identifiable.

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 a precondition ('Requires products:read') and a scoping rule (supplier ranges only, not personal recipes/colour mixes), but never states when to call this versus cliento_list_colour_bar_ranges or cliento_get_colour_bar_item. Usage is inferable from the singular/plural naming rather than stated.

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