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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does usefully reveal that results are real-time, one-price-per-item, and include official links, prices, weights and award provenance, but it says nothing about result caps (the schema's limit max 30), empty-result behavior, or ordering defaults.

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?

A single tight paragraph that front-loads the resource and scope, then parenthesizes the returned fields and closes with two concrete examples. Nothing is redundant, though the example clause could carry parameter-mapping value more explicitly.

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 search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the important ground: what is searched, that data is live, and what each result contains. The remaining gap is query-behavior detail (sort semantics, result limits), which keeps it short of full completeness.

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 low (17%), so the description needs to compensate. It adds real meaning to `query` (free-form natural language) and the examples implicitly map onto min_price/max_price ('around 200k') and award_only ('award-winning'), but `sort` and `limit` are never explained.

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 states a specific verb and resource: querying currently-on-sale Hetian jade carvings from the Yufu official site, with scope (in-stock, real-time, one item per price). It does not name or distinguish itself from the siblings (get_product, compare_products, get_brand_facts), so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 through example queries ('a 200k seed-material bracelet', 'award-winning Guanyin pendant'), which convey the natural-language style of input. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_product for a single item or compare_products for comparison, and no exclusions.

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