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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive, and the description adds real context beyond them: it names two external side effects (a new match record on matchfetch, a new receipt on rco.wefetch.ai) and states the new receipt supersedes the prior one. It also discloses that the outcome is only observable in the next index edition rather than immediately, which is exactly the kind of delayed-effect detail annotations cannot carry. It stops short of saying whether a correction can be undone or re-submitted safely.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler, and the write effects are front-loaded after the opening clause. The leading 'Corrected:' fragment is stylistically odd and slightly obscures the subject, but nothing in the text is redundant.

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 mutation tool with an output schema already covering return values, the description does the important work: external writes, supersession of the prior receipt, and delayed visibility. What is missing is modest — the role of the 'session' parameter and any failure/rejection behaviour for an open-world write.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it partially does: 'words' is unpacked as name/brand/size, and barcode and country are scoped to a single pair. The fourth required parameter, 'session', is never mentioned, and no format guidance is given (country code style, how to compose the words string, barcode format).

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 conveys that a signed-in brand submits the search words (name, brand, size) for a single barcode/country pair, which is the core action. However, the phrasing is oblique ('gives the words it wants its product found by') and it never distinguishes this tool from the sibling check_product, which an agent would plausibly reach for first when investigating a wrong match.

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 an implicit prerequisite in 'the signed-in brand', signalling authentication is required, and the closing line hints the payoff arrives in the next index edition. But there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus check_product, no exclusions, and no note about what to do if the correction needs review or reversal.

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