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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: it describes what metadata.configurator will contain (dimensions, allowed quantities, options, defaults, processing days) and specifies the error behavior when a label matches no material, including return of the valid list.

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 single paragraph is front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds only relevant detail about return fields and alternate material selection. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though a more structured layout could improve scanability.

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 nested-input, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential calling information: how to identify the product or material, how to request an alternate material, and what key return field is provided. It leaves some gaps, such as the meta parameter and the full UCP field set, but supplies enough for correct invocation.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates substantially by explaining that catalog.id can be a product or material id, and by detailing the selected array usage with name 'Materiale' and label from options. It does not explain the meta parameter or the maxItems constraint, so it is not fully complete.

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 resource ('Scheda di un prodotto') and retrieval scope ('per id di prodotto o di materiale'), and names price_configuration as the downstream consumer. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools lookup_catalog or search_catalog, so it falls short of a 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?

It implies usage by saying the data is to be passed to price_configuration and explains how to request another material via id or selected label. However, it never states when to choose this tool over lookup_catalog or search_catalog, leaving the main when-to-use question to inference.

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