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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds that the payload contains options, materials, and minimum — useful content disclosure — but says nothing about error behavior for a bad id or how the record is scoped.

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?

One short sentence with the key information front-loaded; nothing is redundant. The 'Pouch.me:' branding prefix is the only element that doesn't earn its place.

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 one required parameter, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. The gap is that the sole input's semantics are carried entirely by an undocumented string, and 'minimum' is left undefined (presumably minimum order quantity).

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 coverage is 0%, so the single format_id parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description partially compensates by indicating the id comes from list_bag_formats, but gives no format, shape, or validation hints beyond that.

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+resource: retrieve details for one format id, and lists the fields returned (options, materials, minimum). It implicitly contrasts with the sibling list_bag_formats by naming it as the source of ids, so an agent can tell the two apart.

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?

'from list_bag_formats' establishes the prerequisite: call the list tool first to obtain a valid format_id. There are no explicit when-not conditions or warnings about unknown ids, but the usage context is clear.

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