List collections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description nonetheless adds the ordering guarantee ("trending first") and the fact that only "active" collections appear, which the annotations do not convey. The trailing "Read-only" largely restates the annotation rather than adding new behavior, and pagination/truncation behavior beyond the cap is not described.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource definition, then intended use, then the exclusion routing, then the parameter note. No padding; even the short tail sentences carry routing or constraint information.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be explained, yet the description still names the key fields. With one optional parameter fully documented and annotations covering safety, nothing an agent needs to invoke this 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 single `limit` parameter is already documented as "default 50, max 100" in the schema; the description repeats that verbatim without adding format or semantics beyond it. With the schema doing the work, this sits at the baseline.

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 ("List active curated collections") and immediately defines what a collection is ("themed landing pages on allover.art") plus the ordering ("trending first") and returned fields (title, slug, url). An agent can distinguish this from search_products or get_product without opening either 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 an explicit trigger ("when the human wants ideas or a themed page to browse; send them the url") and an explicit negative case naming the alternative tool ("Collections are not a search filter: to find products in a theme, call search_products with theme or query"). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered with the sibling named.

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