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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral detail not in annotations — the per-record point cost — plus the shape of returned records. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this modest addition earns a 3.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the returned fields and cost. No filler; every clause carries 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?

For a read-only keyword search with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, returned fields, and cost. It is nearly complete, missing only pagination/total-count behavior and explicit sibling routing, which are minor for this tool class.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both query and max_items are already documented in the schema, including the max of 250 and default of 25. The description only echoes the keyword-search intent and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 (Gartner Peer Insights products), and lists the fields returned (name, vendor, review count). This is clearly a keyword-search variant, distinguishable from single-entity siblings like run_gartner_product or run_gartner_vendor, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 when-to-use or when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as run_gartner_product (single lookup) or run_gartner_market_products. The '1 point per returned record' note hints at cost but gives no usage context for choosing this tool.

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