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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and open-world; the description adds that ranking is deterministic and never commission-weighted, which is a key behavioral trust disclosure. It also tells the caller what each result contains—real checkout price, stock, verification date, regulatory status, and shipping regions—going beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 detailed but every sentence carries load-bearing information, with the core search function front-loaded in the first sentence. Later sentences add scope, output contents, and ranking behavior without wasteful repetition.

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 compensates by enumerating all returned per-match fields and the deterministic ranking behavior. It also covers query capabilities, geographic scope, and the intended use case, leaving little ambiguity for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage. The description adds useful query semantics—model names, manufacturers, categories, and price caps like 'under $10k'—but adds nothing specific to max_results beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search BotInfo's verified catalog' of purchasable advanced robots, humanoids, and quadrupeds. It clearly centers on price/availability comparison, but it never names or contrasts sibling tools, so some sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool when a buyer needs to compare actual availability and price rather than spec-sheet claims. However, it does not mention exclusions or direct the agent to sibling tools like check_us_legality, get_buy_route, or request_quote for neighboring needs.

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