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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the item_no format nuance (8 digits, optional 's' prefix for combination/set articles), which is useful, but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or freshness/locale effects beyond defaults.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the input-sourcing detail. Dense but every clause earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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 an output schema present, return values need no further explanation, and annotations cover safety; the description adds input sourcing and item_no semantics. It is complete enough to call correctly, missing only explicit alternative-routing or failure-mode notes.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining what the item_no's 's' prefix actually means (a combination/set article) and where to source the value, adding real meaning over the schema's bare example.

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 and scope: 'One IKEA item's full normalized detail,' then enumerates the exact fields returned (name, price, rating, images, quick facts, breadcrumb). It clearly reads as the single-item detail tool, distinct from the sibling search/category tools, and it names ikea_search as the source of its input.

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 tells the agent where item_no comes from ('an ikea_search result's item_no field or an ikea.com product page's own URL'), which is genuine routing context. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name a sibling alternative to prefer, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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