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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed world), so the description's added value is the return-row shape — entryId, productId, variantId — which matters because no output schema exists. It omits ordering, pagination beyond `limit`, and what happens when filters match nothing, so it stops short of full behavioral disclosure.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the downstream-ID routing placed second where it is most useful. Every clause (filter axes, return keys, target tools) carries information an agent needs.

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 six-parameter, zero-required search tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, filters and the key return fields with their consumers. Remaining gaps — result ordering, pagination semantics, and empty-result behavior — are minor but real for a listing tool capped at 50 rows.

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 every parameter is already documented with patterns, enum values and defaults; the description merely restates the filter axes. It adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Busca publicaciones de tu organización en las tiendas') and enumerates the searchable dimensions (título/nombre de producto, marca, tienda, estado de stock, bajo MAP), which distinguishes it from siblings like radar_detect_map_violations or radar_check_stock_outages. The second sentence further clarifies its role as the entry point that feeds IDs to other tools.

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 makes the intended workflow clear by name-casting which downstream tools consume `entryId`, `productId` and `variantId`, implying 'start here, then call those'. It gives no explicit exclusion or 'use X instead when…' guidance, so the agent must infer when a more specialized sibling is preferred.

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