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 only the intent semantics (related=alternatives, complementary=add-ons) and nothing about result ordering, why recommendations are returned, or rate limits, so it does not go much beyond the 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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the intent-choice guidance and sibling pointer. No filler and nothing redundant.

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 need not be described, and read-only semantics are covered by annotations. The description covers purpose, intent semantics, and sibling routing; it is complete enough for correct invocation, though it omits the limit parameter's role at the description level (schema covers it).

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: it explains what 'related' (alternatives) versus 'complementary' (add-ons) actually produce, mapping the enum values to user intent. That genuine semantic value nudges it above 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 (get) and resource (related/complementary recommendations) scoped to a known PSA Team Store product handle, and explicitly distinguishes itself from psastore_product, which inspects the seed product itself. An agent can tell what it returns and how it differs from the nearest sibling 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?

Gives actionable routing: pick intent based on wanting 'alternatives or add-ons', and use psastore_product to inspect the seed. It names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it, though it doesn't state when the tool is inappropriate (e.g., unknown handle).

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