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

The annotations already establish a read-only, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds directory-existence scope but provides no detail about matching behavior, multiple or absent matches, or result shape, which is notable because there is no output schema.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the existence-check purpose and immediately state the supported lookup inputs. There is no redundant or extraneous wording.

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 simple two-parameter lookup, the description, complete input schema, and safety annotations are sufficient to make a basic call. However, the absence of an output schema leaves result behavior undocumented, and the description does not connect the lookup to the submission or claim workflow.

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 100%, and the schema already explains both url_or_name, including that a website address is best, and the optional API-key fallback. The description merely repeats the website-or-name choice, so the high-coverage baseline applies.

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 identifies the operation as searching the infobro directory to determine whether a product is already listed, using a website address or name. This clearly states the resource and purpose, but it does not explicitly distinguish the directory-wide lookup from siblings such as my_tools or prefill_from_url.

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 opening question supplies a concrete use case: checking whether a product already exists in the directory. It does not explicitly recommend using it before submit_tool or identify alternatives for other lookups, so it stops short of complete when/when-not routing.

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