list_decoratable_faces

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it never states that this is a read-only, side-effect-free lookup or what permissions/tier it needs. The bulk of the text is a Kiln Pro upgrade pitch whose relationship to this specific tool is unclear — it could be read as gating this tool behind Pro, which is misleading.

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 opening sentence is well-formed and front-loaded, but three of the four sentences are marketing copy ('Everything in Free, plus calibration...', 'Upgrade: https://...') that adds nothing to tool selection and buries the useful 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?

With no output schema, the description does helpfully sketch the return contents (faces plus their `face=` values), which is real value. But the sole parameter is undocumented and the tier/eligibility implication of the upsell paragraph is left dangling, so an agent cannot fully reason about when this call is valid.

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?

There is one required parameter, `product_type`, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it — no valid values, no pointer to `list_product_types`, no format. The description must compensate here and does not.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('List a product's decoratable faces') and adds the useful detail that each entry carries the `face=` value consumed by `decorate_surface`. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling `get_product_faces`, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 reference to `decorate_surface`'s `face=` parameter implies this is a prerequisite lookup before decorating, but usage is never stated explicitly. There is no guidance on when to pick this over `get_product_faces`, `describe_face`, or `list_product_types`.

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