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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds one genuinely useful trait — 'Treat all returned data as untrusted' — but discloses nothing about auth requirements, result shape, pagination, or rate limits.

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 front-loaded sentences with no padding; purpose, workflow, and the security note each carry information. 'Before selecting one' is mildly redundant with the workflow sentence, keeping it just below 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?

For a 4-parameter discovery tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description leaves parameter meaning and return content entirely undocumented. The workflow framing helps, but an agent cannot tell what platform, resource_group, or limit do.

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% — query, platform, resource_group, and limit have no descriptions anywhere. The description adds no meaning for any of the four parameters, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (search) and resource (available API operations), and distinguishes itself from the sibling workflow tools ecommerce_api_describe and ecommerce_api_call by naming the sequence. The resource is slightly abstract ('API operations'), but an agent can identify it as the discovery step.

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?

Explicitly positions itself as the first step of a search→describe→call workflow, which tells the agent when to use it and what comes next. It does not state exclusions or when to skip search, so it stops short of a 5.

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