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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful fact that the storefront URL is fixed (no URL input needed) and that content is normalized, but discloses no auth requirements, rate limits, or failure behavior for an unknown handle.

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 action and its key front-loaded ahead of the disambiguation list.

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 and annotations covering the safety/open-world profile, the description only needs to establish purpose, key, and sibling routing — all of which it does completely.

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 the single parameter is already documented as 'Static page handle (URL slug)'. The description's 'by page `handle`' restates rather than extends that, so the schema does the heavy lifting and 3 is the correct baseline.

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 (Fetch) plus the exact resource (normalized PSA Team Store static-page details) and the key that selects it (page handle). An agent can distinguish this from psastore_pages and psastore_product immediately, 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use psastore_pages to list available pages, psastore_store for store metadata, psastore_product for an item. The when-to-use-this vs alternatives condition (I already have a handle) is implied by the fixed-handle framing, and the alternatives are named concretely.

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