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

The description goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) by detailing the ranking basis, calibration thresholds, tiebreaker behavior, and the exact structure of the response including fields like position, rank, and agent readiness sub-scores. This provides comprehensive behavioral insight.

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 well-structured with clear sections for purpose, pagination, calibration, and response format. It is slightly lengthy but every sentence adds value. Front-loading the purpose and sorting makes it immediately useful.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (scoring, pagination, multiple response fields), the description is remarkably complete. It covers the scoring scale, calibration, pagination behavior, tiebreaker rules, and the full response object structure. No output schema is needed because the description provides all necessary details.

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 schema already describes all three parameters (skip, limit, minimumScore) with default values. The description adds valuable context: it explains the meaning of minimumScore thresholds (e.g., default 30 filters out non-agent-ready products) and notes that skip/limit enable pagination. This enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 explicitly states the tool finds products with the highest agent readiness scores, defines the scoring scale (0-100), and explains the sorting by compositeScore. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'products.find_by_capability' or 'tools.find_for_task' which focus on other aspects.

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 explains that the tool returns products sorted by compositeScore descending, supports pagination via skip/limit, and has a default minimumScore filter. It also clarifies that tier is not a tiebreaker. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'products.search' or 'rankings.get', leaving some inference to the agent.

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