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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to state it. It adds behavioral details beyond the schema: that it is the same store listing as the website, that it includes pricing, and how pagination works (next_offset, has_more). No contradictions with 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 description is moderately long but every sentence contributes: purpose, return fields, filters, pagination, and alternative tool. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and the structure flows logically. Slightly more detail than necessary, but not wasteful.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description doesn't need to detail returns, but it does anyway. It covers all filter options, pagination, and the alternative for single-agent views. An agent has everything it needs to call and iterate 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by noting category_slug comes from findagent_list_categories (not mentioned in schema), and reiterates the pagination flow (use returned next_offset) which is also in the schema. This additional context makes it more helpful than a bare 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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Browse'), the resource ('PUBLISHED FindAgent marketplace catalogue WITH pricing'), and explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool findagent_get_agent ('for the full store view of one slug'). It also includes the exact fields returned, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: it is the catalogue browser, and explicitly points to findagent_get_agent for a single agent. It also tells users where to obtain category_slug (from findagent_list_categories) and gives precise pagination instructions (use next_offset, repeat until has_more is false). No ambiguity left for the agent.

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