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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, and the description's 'verified opt-in public' is consistent with openWorldHint=false while adding real information: unverified or non-consenting profiles are excluded from results. Nothing is said about match behavior, ranking, result counts, or empty-result handling.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness is under-specification rather than true economy given the 13-parameter surface.

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 faceted search with 13 optional filters, no output schema, and no parameter docs, the description omits matching semantics (exact vs fuzzy/keyword), how filters combine (AND vs OR), pagination beyond limit's cap of 20, and result ordering. An agent can call it but cannot predict what it will get back.

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?

13 parameters at 0% schema description coverage and the description explains none of them. Cryptic names like moq, hs_cn_code, canonical_concept_id, and especially the source_language vs preferred_language pair (query translation vs result language) are left entirely unexplained, so an agent must guess.

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 ('product profiles') plus a scope qualifier ('verified opt-in public'), which separates it from search_manufacturers/search_suppliers/get_public_product_profile. It does not say what attributes are searchable, but the core identity of the tool is unambiguous.

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?

'only verified opt-in public' is a corpus restriction, not usage guidance; it tells the agent what it cannot find but not when to pick this over search_opportunities, search_suppliers, or search_manufacturers. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are given.

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