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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that: only *current public* options and prices are returned, sizes and material stay coupled to price, and photorelief is read-only over MCP. It stops short of saying what happens when the ID is unknown or invalid.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary read behavior, then the ID-resolution mode, then the boundary to sibling tools. "Maten en materiaal blijven aan de prijs gekoppeld" is dense domain phrasing that is somewhat opaque on first read, but nothing is padding.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what comes back; it does at a high level (options and prices, photorelief readable only) without describing response shape or volume. For a single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage it is close to adequate.

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 0% and the schema only declares a 1-160 char string, so the description carries the load. It explains that the ID can be a product identifier or a variant ID sourced from search_catalog, which is exactly the meaning the bare schema lacks.

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 and resource ("Lees alle huidige openbare opties en prijzen van een product") plus a second mode ("vind de variant bij een variant-ID"), so the agent knows both the read shape and the ID-resolution use case. It names search_catalog as the source of variant IDs and start_wallpaper_design as the design path, which distinguishes it from siblings without opening any 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?

"vind de variant bij een variant-ID uit search_catalog" gives a concrete upstream workflow, and "catalogusbehang ontwerp je met start_wallpaper_design" is an explicit when-not plus alternative. It does not clarify how it relates to get_wallpaper_design or the quote/handoff siblings, so the exclusion set is only partial.

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