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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, closed-world), but the description adds genuinely useful behavior: the max-3-per-stall cap, the newest-first ordering, and notably that no prices are returned and the link must be followed for price/ordering.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: purpose, scope, filters, and return shape in three tight sentences. Mild redundancy where it restates schema defaults ('default 24, up to 168') keeps it short of a 5.

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 an output schema exists, the description need not detail returns, yet it still summarizes them and flags the important 'no prices' caveat. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 all five parameters are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only light value (example category names, pointer to list_buildings) and repeats schema constraints like 'default 24, up to 168' rather than adding new semantics.

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 (list) and resource (newest wholesale items by Dongdaemun stalls) with scope, ordering, and cap ('newest first, at most 3 per stall'). It is clearly distinguishable from search_products/find_stalls by its time-window framing.

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?

Gives clear context: last N hours, optional building and category filters, and routes the agent to list_buildings for building keys. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over search_products, so the alternative-selection guidance is only implied.

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