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

On top of annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds meaningful behavior: it returns all when category is omitted, only verified cards and measureable DokiDepo links, and rejects extra fields or unknown categories with JSON-RPC -32602. This goes well beyond the annotations and 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?

Every sentence earns its place: usage guidance is front-loaded, followed by parameter behavior, result guarantees, exclusions, and error behavior. It is compact, structured, and free of fluff.

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 rich annotations, a fully documented single parameter, an output schema present, and explicit guidance on usage, exclusions, defaults, and error cases, the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 category enum descriptions are detailed. The description adds further value by explaining the default behavior (all), the optional nature of the parameter, and the exact error for unknown values or extra fields, which the schema alone does not fully convey.

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 clearly states the verb (list) and resource (public warehouse tools), and frames it as the first tool to use when selecting an open warehouse tool. It also distinguishes itself by explicitly stating it does not perform warehouse operations and does not accept files, goods, passwords, or codes, setting it apart from siblings.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Use first when you need to select an open warehouse tool by task.' It also excludes warehouse operations and files/goods/passwords/codes, implying alternatives for those uses. However, it does not name sibling tools explicitly, so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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