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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the selection criteria but does not elaborate on output behavior, ordering, or side effects; it is consistent with annotations and adds no contradictory behavioral claims.

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 a single terse phrase with no fluff, keeping the key criteria front and center. It sacrifices a full sentence structure for brevity, which is acceptable though slightly cryptic with the undefined 'N'.

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 an output schema present and fully documented parameters, the description is minimally viable for selecting the tool inferably. However, it does not explicitly state that it returns a report or how it relates to sibling audit tools, leaving some context gaps.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for limit and min_images. The description's 'fewer than N total images' maps to min_images but does not add meaningful semantics beyond the schema, so the high schema coverage sets 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?

The description identifies a specific resource (products) and the exact audit criteria (missing featured image or fewer than N total images), which distinguishes it from general product or SEO audits. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'flags,' but the tool name and 'products without...' make the purpose reasonably clear.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this audit instead of a sibling like run_product_completeness_score or run_seo_metadata_audit. The intended context is only implied by the title and description; no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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