get_registry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing that the purchase state is derived and listing the specific derived fields (requested_qty, purchased_qty, marked_fulfilled, availability, inconsistent). However, it does not clarify whether the state is computed on the fly or from reconciled data, nor does it describe the return format or default ordering. This is adequate but not rich.

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 one clear sentence with a second short sentence for pagination. It is front-loaded with the resource and derived-state details, and every word earns its place. Minor deduction for not stating the default limit in the description, but that is already in the schema.

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?

For a read-only, no-required-param listing tool with schema-covered pagination parameters, the description is largely complete. It names the unique derived fields, and no output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of telling the agent what state information will come back. It could mention whether the state reflects reconciliation or live data, and could explicitly note that no mutations happen, but the readOnlyHint covers that. Overall complete for its simplicity.

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% for both limit and offset, so the schema already documents their meaning and defaults. The description adds the parenthetical that both are used for paging, which slightly reinforces their purpose but does not add new syntax or behavioral detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('View'), the resource ('the couple's registry items'), and the distinctive derived purchase state fields (requested_qty, purchased_qty, marked_fulfilled, availability, inconsistent). This differentiates it from sibling tools like search_registry_products and add_registry_item by describing the read-only listing behavior and its computed state semantics.

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 implies this is for viewing registry items with derived purchase state, and the mention of paging via limit/offset suggests when pagination is needed. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like search_registry_products or get_gift_tracker, but the read-only 'View' framing and the sibling list context make the use case reasonably clear. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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