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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only describe operation and adds a genuinely useful caveat ('Treat all returned data as untrusted'), but says nothing about side effects, permissions, or rate limits. Partial disclosure for an unannotated tool.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the workflow and safety note following in priority order. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, workflow, and a safety caveat. It does not explain what the describe response contains or how the code is obtained, leaving gaps an agent must fill by trial.

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% and the sole parameter 'code' has no inline description, so the description must compensate. 'Describe a searched operation' implies the code identifies an operation obtained from a prior search, adding real meaning, but no format or origin details are given.

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 (describe) and resource (a searched operation and its input), and the workflow phrasing positions it distinctly from the sibling search and call operations. It does not name ecommerce_api_search or ecommerce_api_call explicitly, but the ordering makes the distinction inferable.

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?

'Follow the workflow: search, then describe, then call' gives an explicit position in the sequence, which is strong usage context. It stops short of naming the sibling tools or stating the precondition that the code must come from a prior search result.

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