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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds genuinely non-structured context: results are seller-maintained via AgentDNA, ownership is verified, and machine results carry a live-handshake witness from AETHER. It stops short of describing result shape, ranking, or pagination behavior, which matters given there is no output schema.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the identity of the resource and then the result domains. The parentheticals are dense but every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 9-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description does the important work: it says what kinds of objects come back and what qualifies them. The missing pieces — how results are ordered, what a page looks like, and whether type=all merges domains — are secondary but not trivial.

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 only 33% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does map meaning onto several filters — price/availability imply max_price and in_stock, verified ownership implies verified_only, and the three named entity kinds correspond to the type enum — but domain, currency, limit, and offset get no semantic treatment anywhere.

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?

Specific verb+resource: "Search Agentify, the search engine for AI agents," followed by an explicit enumeration of the three result domains (products, companies, machines). An agent can tell this is a broad, multi-entity search rather than a fetch-by-id or a stats call, though no sibling tool is named to sharpen that contrast.

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?

"Use it instead of crawling websites" gives a clear when-to-use rule plus a named alternative behavior to avoid. It does not, however, say when to prefer agentify_get, agentdna_catalog, or agentify_stats over this broad search, so routing vs. siblings is left implicit.

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