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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuinely non-obvious operational facts: the returned help text is in Dutch and includes direct in-app links, and it covers app-only features not reachable through the connection. These are real behavioral disclosures not inferable from the annotations or schema.

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 core action and scope, then the enumerations and the language/link caveats. The long feature list is dense but each item earns its place by defining matching scope. Minor: it is somewhat list-heavy.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup with full schema coverage, the description supplies the critical unknowns: topic domain, Dutch output language, presence of in-app links, and the app-only boundary. It is essentially complete. It could note that results may be empty when no help text matches, 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% and the single parameter is well documented (question, any language, with an example). The description adds no syntax, format, or matching behavior for the parameter beyond the domain list it will match against. With full schema coverage and one parameter, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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) and resource (FeedMyCart help text), and the parenthetical enumerates the topic domain (loyalty cards, receipt scanning, sharing, deals, pantry, recipes, offline use, costs, AI assistant connection). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools add_to_list, read_list, read_pantry, and search_deals, which operate on actual data rather than app documentation.

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?

The description scopes when it applies: questions 'about how the app works or whether a feature exists.' It also draws a boundary by stating it 'Covers features that are only available in the app, not through this connection,' signaling when this tool is inappropriate. No alternative tool is named for those app-only cases, but the usage context is otherwise clear.

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