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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful integration context — that ids must not be guessed and that the returned ids feed decals[].id and style.productionLogos — but says nothing about pagination, catalog size, or result ordering.

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?

One dense paragraph, front-loaded with what the catalog contains, then constraints, then parameter modes. Every clause carries information, though the long parenthetical aside about get_content interrupts the flow mid-sentence.

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 no output schema, the description correctly enumerates the return shape (grouping by category, id, natural pixel size, preview URLs) and names the downstream consumers of those ids. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents query as a case-insensitive match on id/name and category as a single category id with examples. The description restates these semantics ('one category', 'search names') without adding format, default, or combination rules, so the 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+resource ('the decal catalog') and enumerates its contents precisely (stickers, graphics, shapes, distributor marks). It explicitly excludes a sibling's territory — 'a title's own posters / logos / stills come from get_content instead' — so an agent can distinguish it from get_content and search_content 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 a direct imperative ('Call it before placing decals'), a hard constraint ('ids are exact strings, never guessed'), and the routing condition for the alternative (get_content for title-owned artwork). It also explains both usage modes: category id for one category, query for name search.

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