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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose return content (ranked candidates, price, availability, product_id) and that prices are in major USD units, but it says nothing about read-only semantics, auth requirements, rate limits, or how ranking is determined.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and result shape, then the chaining rule and the unit convention. Each sentence carries information; no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so explaining return values isn't required, and the chaining rule covers the main invocation pitfall. But for a five-parameter search tool with zero schema coverage, missing guidance on limit defaults, country scoping, and the agent field leaves the definition incomplete 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across five parameters, so the description must compensate and largely doesn't. It clarifies price units for max_price_usd but leaves country, limit, and agent — which materially change results and result count — entirely unexplained 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Search products') plus the intent it serves ('for a buyer intent') and the shape of the result (ranked candidates with price, availability, product_id). It names get_product as the follow-up tool, though it doesn't differentiate itself from shop_scorecard or report_outcome.

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?

'Call get_product(product_id) before quoting a specific variant' is an explicit workflow rule that tells the agent when to chain into a sibling rather than trusting search results alone. No exclusion or when-not guidance is given, so it stops 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.