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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns ids and deep links, which is useful but not extensive. It does not mention pagination, result limits, or other behavioral constraints, so the extra context beyond annotations is modest.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence fronts the core purpose and return value; the second is a targeted disambiguation note that prevents misuse. Every word earns its place.

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 simple read-only search tool with one well-documented parameter, the description covers what it searches, what it returns, and when not to use it. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the explicit 'ids + deep links' mention. It could note pagination, but that is not essential for correct 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?

The schema has 100% coverage for the lone 'query' parameter with 'Free-text query.' The description adds that the search works over 'product listings (by ASIN or title) and records,' which gives concrete meaning to the free-text query. It also implies that the query can be an ASIN or title, which is valuable beyond the schema's generic phrasing.

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 (keyword search), a specific resource (SellerForge RECORDS), enumerates the record types (compliance/POA cases, escalation plans, product listings), and specifies the return value (ids + deep links). It explicitly distinguishes itself from metric tools by stating 'this searches records, not metrics,' which differentiates it from the large group of get_* siblings.

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 an explicit when-not rule: 'for sales, ads, inventory or health NUMBERS use the get_* metric tools.' It names the alternative tool family and the condition that selects them. It also clarifies the record scopes, so an agent knows exactly when this tool is the right choice.

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