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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts beyond that: no automatic pagination or retries, a full_page signal for continuation, and concrete rate ceilings of 3/second per user and 10/second site-wide. Only the response shape is left unstated.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with what is read, then pagination, then rate pacing. No filler. Slightly dense telegraphic style, but every sentence carries a distinct fact an agent needs.

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 4-parameter, zero-required, read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, continuation behavior, and throttling. The main residual gap is that it never characterizes the returned record set beyond a field list, leaving an agent to infer result shape.

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?

At 50% schema coverage, only sort and filter carry schema descriptions; page and limit are bare. The description mentions 'optional Infoplus filter and sort expressions' and the page-continuation mechanic, which partially compensates for the page parameter but adds nothing about page numbering, defaults, or limits beyond what the schema states.

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 and resource with field scope: 'Read one page of item SKU, status, packaging and reorder metadata.' This clearly separates it from the get_* siblings (get_item = single record, search_items = paged list). It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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 implies list/paged retrieval and warns that 'a full_page result may have a following page; request the next page to check,' which is real usage guidance. But it never states when to reach for this versus infoplus_get_item or infoplus_search_inventory, so sibling selection is left to inference from the names.

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