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

With zero annotations the description does real work: it discloses that seller-authored text is returned inside an "untrusted" block and must be treated as data, never instructions, and that no API key is required. It is silent on rate limits, result-set size behavior, and pagination beyond what the schema's page/limit bounds already say.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the prompt-injection safety note, then the auth fact. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to discover by trial.

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 an 11-parameter, zero-required search with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: return shape, trust boundary for seller text, and auth requirements. Minor gaps remain around result paging/counts and how filters combine, but nothing that would block a correct call.

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 82%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter including the one-letter-ignored rule and whole-currency pricing. The description adds no filter semantics beyond echoing that price is in USD, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Search live products") and enumerates the return essentials an agent needs (versionId to order, USD price, buyability), which pins down the purpose far better than the title alone. It never names the closest sibling (get_product for a single item, search_assets for non-purchasable assets), so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: "the versionId to order" hints this is the discovery step before create_order, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as get_product when the id is already known. An agent can guess the workflow position but is given no routing rules.

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