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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description's job is to add context—and it does meaningfully: 'We have not checked any catalogue's claims. No holder is named,' plus the note that each row links to the catalogue's own page. Those trust/provenance caveats are not derivable from the annotations and materially affect how an agent should present results.

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?

Front-loaded with the core scope in the first clause, and the trailing caveats (unverified claims, no named holder) are short and load-bearing. The parenthetical kind list ('companies' records, codebases, footage, speech, environments') partially duplicates the kind enum, but overall there is little waste.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so: it lists the returned facets and the catalogue-page link, and flags the verification/attribution limits. For a read-only, zero-required-parameter search across 5 well-documented params, an agent has enough to call and interpret it, though result ordering ('Longest history first') is the only paging/sort guidance given.

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%, including per-enum explanations for kind, rights and industry, so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'in one vocabulary' plus the rights/readiness framing reinforces the model but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already documents.

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 names a specific resource and scope: 'Every lot publicly on offer in the catalogues the lot index reads each day,' and enumerates the facets (kind, industry, years of history, systems, size, rights, readiness). It is clearly distinguishable in substance from party-oriented siblings like find_buyers/find_vendors, but it never names an alternative to route against, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied—an agent can infer this is the tool for browsing catalogued data on offer, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. list_datasets, find_vendors). No prerequisites or exclusion conditions are stated.

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