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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by noting ranked results and the inclusion of offers and agent.json URLs. It doesn't explain ranking criteria or open-world limitations, but the annotations carry the safety profile.

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 two terse, front-loaded sentences with no filler. It states the scope and the return shape efficiently, which is appropriate for a search tool.

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 tool, the description gives the essential purpose and result shape. However, with 14 parameters, only 36% schema coverage, and no output schema, more guidance on filter semantics, ranking behavior, and response structure would be needed for fully reliable invocation.

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 only 36%, and the description does not compensate for the low coverage. It only reinforces the meaning of 'q' as a buyer request; it does not clarify lat/lng, category, industry, verified, min_trust, price_band, readiness, or checkout/negotiation filters. This leaves many parameters under-specified.

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 action ('Search across all Nexez merchants') and clearly identifies the resource (merchant services/products) and return contents (ranked listings with offers + agent.json URLs). This differentiates it well from the sibling directory, page, and validation tools.

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 description provides clear context: this is the cross-merchant search tool for matching buyer requests. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer its primary role among the siblings.

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