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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context: output is 'normalized' and 'the storefront URL is fixed server-side,' meaning no URL argument is needed. It doesn't describe rate limits or auth, so a 3 is appropriate given the annotation coverage.

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 with zero waste; the purpose is front-loaded and the routing hint follows immediately. Every sentence 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 value details needn't be explained. Combined with the fixed-URL note and sibling routing, the definition covers what an agent needs; only minor enrichment (e.g., handle format) is absent.

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 single 'handle' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description calls it a 'page handle' but adds no format or example beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Returns normalized static page detail') and resource ('one Brooklinen page handle'), and explicitly names the sibling brooklinen_pages as the list alternative. An agent can distinguish this detail tool from the pages-list tool without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative explicitly ('Use brooklinen_pages to list Brooklinen static pages'), which implies this tool is for fetching a single page when a handle is known. Clear routing context, though it doesn't state the inverse condition ('use this when you already have a handle') verbatim.

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