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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the discovery-then-call workflow and the device_key prerequisite, which annotations cannot express. It does not describe pagination or how many tools are typically returned, a minor gap for a catalog listing.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and ending with the prerequisite. No filler, though the opening repetition of the title 'Komers tools' costs a few words that could have gone to search behavior.

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, the description still tells the agent what comes back (the tool list with their inputs) and what the natural next step is. For a one-optional-param read-only catalog tool, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 100% and there is a single optional parameter already documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's category list (orders, stock, bookings) loosely hints at what the search filter matches, but it never names or explains the 'search' parameter directly.

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?

Specific verb plus resource: 'List the Komers tools available through the owner's Komers connection ... with their inputs'. It enumerates the covered domains (products and stock, orders, customers, bookings, messages, sales reports, stores) and explicitly names the sibling it feeds into ('Then use komers_call'), so an agent can distinguish it from komers_call or list_komers_products without opening schemas.

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?

States the ordering contract (list first, then invoke via komers_call) and the prerequisite that most tools need a device_key obtained from komers_status. That is explicit when-to-use and dependency guidance rather than implied usage.

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