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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose billing behavior ('1 point per returned record'), which is valuable cost context absent from the schema. However, it says nothing about read-only semantics, pagination, rate limits, or partial-result behavior.

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-loaded with the action and resource; the second sentence adds the billing note without waste. No redundancy or filler.

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?

It partially covers return content (name, rating, review count, image), which matters since there is no output schema, and flags the point cost. But for a search tool with several close siblings, the lack of routing guidance and any pagination/auth note leaves 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with only two simple parameters (query, max_items), so the schema already documents both fully. The description adds no syntax, format, or matching hints beyond the schema's own example.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (Capterra software products) and clarifies it is keyword-based, plus what fields come back. It does not differentiate from the close sibling run_capterra_category_products, which is a category-driven variant of the same resource.

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 phrase 'by keyword' implies you need a text query, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer run_capterra_category_products or run_capterra_product instead, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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