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 one genuinely useful behavioral fact – the storefront URL is fixed server-side, so the caller cannot retarget the source – plus the word 'normalized.' That is real added context but not rich.

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, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the routing hint placed last. 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?

For a one-parameter read tool with a full output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers what to call, what it returns conceptually, and the sibling to use instead. Edge behavior for an unknown handle is unaddressed, but that is a minor omission.

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 100% with a single documented 'handle' parameter, so the schema carries the semantics. The description only restates 'page handle' without adding format, slug examples, or lookup guidance, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

The description gives a specific verb ('Returns') plus a precise resource ('normalized static page detail for one Cole Haan page handle') and pins the scope to a single page. It explicitly contrasts itself with the listing sibling colehaan_pages, so an agent can distinguish it without opening a 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?

It names the alternative tool ('Use colehaan_pages to list Cole Haan static pages'), which cleanly splits list-vs-detail. It stops short of an explicit 'use this one when you already have a handle' statement, but the selection condition is strongly implied by 'for one ... page handle'.

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