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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive annotations it discloses cost ('Free'), an auth requirement ('Needs sign-in'), result ordering ('Best matches first'), page size (10 at a time), and the pagination contract (total counts every match; next_cursor passed back as cursor with the same site, query and type). That is substantial added context; it stops short of 5 only because it says nothing about empty-result behavior or what 'price' represents.

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?

Two dense sentences that front-load the returned fields before pagination and routing guidance; nearly every clause earns its place. Minor cost: the return-field enumeration is packed into one long clause, making it slightly harder to scan than a bulleted form.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-shape burden and does so thoroughly — field names, total count, and next_cursor semantics. Combined with auth and cost notes, an agent has everything needed to call it and consume the result.

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 100%, so the schema already documents site, type, query and cursor, including the enum. The description restates the type values and the cursor round-trip rule but adds no new syntax, format, or defaulting guidance beyond the structured fields, making the 3 baseline appropriate.

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 ('Find the exact endpoints datawebot has for a shop') followed by the exact fields returned (endpoint id, type, price, page limit, input_example/url_pattern). It explicitly carves out territory from siblings search_products and get_product, so an agent can pick correctly without opening schemas.

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 only when the user wants something search_products and get_product don't cover (a whole catalogue, a category page, several pages) or an exact endpoint for a script' gives an explicit when-to-use plus named alternatives and the follow-on action (run it with submit_job). Exclusions are stated, not inferred.

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