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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope filter 'active, merchant-approved', which is useful, but it does not describe return format, pagination, or other behavior beyond the list itself.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the main action. The 'Not medical advice' sentence is tangential but does not significantly hurt clarity; three sentences are still concise.

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?

This is a simple read-only tool with one constrained parameter, and the annotations and schema cover safety and input. The description supplies the tool's purpose and a usage condition, which is largely sufficient even without an output schema.

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 0%, so the description was expected to compensate, but it never mentions the 'country' parameter. The schema's required const 'RU' is clear on its own, but the description adds no meaning about how or why the parameter affects results.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('active, merchant-approved catalog goals'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like products_search or delivery_regions. An agent can tell exactly what this tool returns.

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?

'Use goals only when requested' is an explicit condition for when to invoke the tool. It does not name alternative tools, but it provides clear context and a when-not-to-use signal.

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