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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral context: paid tier is only an annotation, ranking basis is productName, and every result includes position, rank, and preflight annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the purpose but includes detailed response field listings, which adds length. While informative, it could be more concise by omitting exhaustive field enumeration.

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 (disambiguation across products), the presence of input schema, annotations, and output schema, the description fully covers semantics, usage, and behavior, leaving no 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining 'normalized tool name' and providing examples ('search', 'create_issue'), improving agent understanding beyond the schema's description.

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 specifies 'List every (product, tool) pair that shares a normalized name,' clearly stating the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by calling it a 'disambiguation lookup' and noting that same name across providers does not imply interchangeability.

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 when to use the tool (disambiguation lookup) and provides context (same name not interchangeable). It implicitly guides against using it for comparing tools across providers, though explicit alternatives to sibling tools like 'tools.search' are not given.

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