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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive read behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful semantic warning that empty results are not evidence of quality, but says nothing about pagination behavior implied by the 'after' parameter or result 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?

Two short sentences with no padding, and the core action is front-loaded. The caveat sentence is terse and mostly earns its place, though it is somewhat cryptic without context on why empty results occur.

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 simple read-only discovery tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. The main gap is the total absence of parameter meaning, which matters more here since the schema provides no descriptions.

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?

Both parameters (q, after) have 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions them. With two undocumented params, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap, leaving the agent to guess that 'q' is a query and 'after' is a pagination cursor.

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 and resource ('Find merchants') with a scoping qualifier ('with published feedback'), which distinguishes it from sibling discovery tools like find_offerings and find_reviews. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as find_reviews or get_reputation, nor of any prerequisites. The second sentence is an interpretive caveat about results, not usage guidance for selecting the tool.

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