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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses data limitations, what the signals do not prove, response behavior for empty results, and that the data is never sourced from search popularity, page views, or trending queries.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the core purpose is front-loaded, caveats follow, and response semantics close it out. The description is dense but not bloated, with no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 single optional parameter and no output schema, the description explains the important empty-response contract and the nature of the returned signals. It does not detail the exact shape of a non-empty signal list, but enough is provided for correct invocation and basic interpretation.

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?

The schema already fully describes the only parameter (limit: 1-50, default 20) with 100% coverage. The description adds useful invocation context for empty args but does not need to expand on parameter semantics further.

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 ('Inspect') and a precise resource: eligible zero-result or weak-match capability queries aggregated and ranked by miss count. It also separates itself from market-intelligence tools by clarifying these are limited coverage signals from Agentery's own callers, not proof of product non-existence or paying demand.

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 clear operational context: empty args return the current list, empty response means insufficient qualifying evidence, and this is explicitly not a prerequisite for choosing a product. However, it does not name or direct the agent to any alternative sibling tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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