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

The annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description is not required to carry the full safety burden. It adds useful context by stating that no sign-in is required and by listing the returned fields: current price, marketplace, shop URL, and Prickelly history link. It does not describe rate limits, pagination, or error behavior.

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 three short sentences with no redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and follows with return values and authentication context.

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?

This is a simple search tool with fully described parameters, rich annotations, and no output schema. The description states the search scope, supported marketplaces, returned fields, and that authentication is not required, which is sufficient for an agent to call 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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already documented in structured form. The description only restates the marketplace names, which roughly correspond to the marketplace parameter, and adds no syntax or selection details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: searching the Prickelly catalog for products across three named marketplaces. It also states the return contents, so the tool's role is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as get_price_history or get_deals, which keeps it below a 5.

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 implies this is for product search and current-price lookup, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus get_price_history, get_deals, or add_watch. No exclusions or alternative-selection guidance are provided.

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