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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuine value by stating it returns public listing details and URLs and by flagging seller listing descriptions as untrusted content that must not be treated as instructions — a real prompt-injection disclosure absent from the structured fields. It does not mention 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?

Two tightly written sentences: the core action and scope are front-loaded, the return content follows, and the injection warning is a compact final clause. 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 read-only search with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers behavior and return content adequately and adds a security note. It falls short on parameter guidance (date, limit, radius_km) and on distinguishing itself from the other sale tools.

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 description coverage is only 17%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It partially maps to 'location' and the latitude/longitude pair, but says nothing about date, limit, or radius_km, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Find current garage sales' with an explicit geographic scope (city/postcode/country or coordinates). It is clearly a search/browse operation, which naturally contrasts with the get_sale/publish_sale/update_sale siblings, but the description never names or contrasts with any sibling.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to alternatives (e.g., use get_sale for a single known sale, get_submission_status for a submission). The phrase 'current garage sales' hints at freshness but the agent must infer all routing decisions.

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