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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds scope limits beyond them: it reads titles only and not attributes, it states facts rather than replacing the marketplace's title standard, protected names are reported but never proposed for change, and max_pages caps the scan at 100 offers per page. These are genuine behavioral constraints an agent could not infer from the 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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and every sentence carries information (checks performed, keyword gap analysis, scope caveats). It is dense and fairly long, but no sentence is filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-format explanation is unnecessary. For a five-parameter audit tool the description covers the analysis dimensions, the keyword-gap behavior, the protection semantics, and the scope limits, leaving nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: `keywords` is characterized as buyer search terms from the marketplace's own search report with search counts, and `protect` is clarified as reported-but-never-modified. `account`, `max_pages` and `only_active` are left to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ([Analysis] audit of product titles for one account) and enumerates exactly what is inspected: short/long titles, missing size, capitalization, promotional or repeated words, missing brand, duplicates, size consistency. It is clearly separable from siblings like catalog_health_audit or offers_validation_errors, and it names offers_update_content as the follow-up action.

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?

Explains the conditional value of `keywords` (only then does it report searches no title answers) and routes the agent to offers_update_content for proposing new titles. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over other catalog-audit siblings, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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