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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the semantic matching behavior, ranking by profile fields, and a rich result payload including matched terms, product limitations, temporal/spatial coverage, cheapest satisfying tier, quality status, and contract URL. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or pagination, but for a discovery tool this is strong disclosure.

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 a single dense sentence with no filler, and the core concept is front-loaded. It is somewhat run-on, but every enumerated element adds decision-relevant detail about behavior and output.

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?

Behaviorally, the description is rich, but it is incomplete for invocation: there are no parameter descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, leaving limit, category, and flagships_only underspecified. It also lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings.

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 0%, and the description only indirectly explains the 'text' parameter via 'describe the need in plain words.' It provides no meaning or constraints for limit, category, or flagships_only, so an agent cannot confidently determine valid values or effects for those parameters.

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 opens with 'SEMANTIC product discovery' and specifies the action: describe a need in plain words and get products ranked by profile match, with a detailed list of output facets. This clearly identifies the resource (products) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like buy_product, sample_product, and answer_question.

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?

The description gives clear usage context: use plain-language needs across industry, infrastructure type, hazard, or question to discover products. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full exclusionary guidance.

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