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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description aligns ('Computation only'). It adds rich behavioral context: canonical_page carries complete price table including withheld listings, merchant links, affiliate disclosure; bounded compute class; links are user_navigation handoffs. No contradiction.

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?

Long but dense; every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with the purpose, then behavioral details. Not verbose; each clause conveys distinct information.

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?

Provides a partial output description (rows with canonical_page and site_entry_page) and key behavioral constraints, but lacks explanation of most parameters and the full response structure (since there's no output schema). Given the complexity (nested objects, 8 params), more would be expected.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies edition_ids ('2 to 10 edition ids') and indirectly hints at budget via 'cheapest known cost' and 'budget fit', but says nothing about detail, locale, region, constraints, ownership_claims, user_supplied_prices, or schema_version. Major gap for 8 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?

States a clear verb and resource: 'Computation only: per-edition differences... for 2 to 10 edition ids' – specific and scoped. It also references the channel policy shared with resolve_purchase_request, which hints at its niche without explicitly naming sibling tools.

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?

Implies usage: comparing 2–10 editions, and distinguishes from resolve_purchase_request via the shared channel policy (single vs. multiple). Also adds a usage warning: 'Links are user_navigation handoffs... not intended for prefetching or automatic clicking.' No explicit exclusions but enough to guide selection.

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