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

Annotations already mark it readOnly and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context: no network call, no order placement, no payment handling, provider remains merchant of record, and truthful not_configured status. This goes far beyond what annotations provide and contains no contradictions.

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?

The main action is front-loaded, and every caveat serves a safety/commerce purpose. There is minor redundancy (e.g., 'no network call' and later 'never places, modifies or cancels an order'), but it remains efficient for a tool with financial implications.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage boundaries, status values ('ready', 'unsupported', 'not_configured'), and provider-of-record behavior. An output schema exists, and return values are even explained, making the description sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

The single parameter publicRecordId is fully documented in the schema with a clear description. The tool description adds only the generic context of 'record' but no new parameter-specific syntax or format information. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description opens with 'Return the provider's OFFICIAL product link for a record'—a specific verb plus resource—and clears up potential confusion by explicitly stating this is not a checkout-completion URL. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_retail_products or compare_product_offers.

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?

The description gives clear context: this is for human-click buy links, is preflight-only, and never places or modifies orders. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool, so it falls 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.