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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety profile is covered. The description adds the workflow/pass-through context but says nothing about pagination, response volume, or ordering, so it only moderately adds behavioral value beyond annotations.

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 tightly packed sentences with zero waste, front-loaded with what the tool returns and following with the parameter lineage. Every clause earns 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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the description covers the resource, the key output field (set_id), and the parameter source. It's complete enough for a one-param lookup, with only minor gaps like pagination behavior.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does: it explains that category_id originates from psa_cardfacts_categories, giving the agent provenance for the single required parameter. It could add the integer format or valid range but the provenance is the key semantic.

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 (every card set PSA CardFacts lists for a category) and clarifies it carries the numeric set_id. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming both psa_cardfacts_categories (input source) and psa_cardfacts_checklist (downstream consumer).

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?

Explicitly explains the tool's place in the chain: category_id comes from psa_cardfacts_categories, and the returned set_id is passed to psa_cardfacts_checklist. It gives clear context for when to use it, though it doesn't state exclusions or alternatives explicitly.

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