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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Search' implies a read operation, but it says nothing about pagination, default limits, result contents, permissions, or rate limits for a 27-parameter tool.

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 sentence is short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. For a tool with 27 optional filters, this one-liner omits nearly all structurally important information.

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?

A complex 27-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema requires substantially more description. The current text leaves behavior, parameter usage, and result shape almost entirely unexplained.

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 44% across 27 parameters. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the opaque external reference to 'GET /q,' leaving most filter semantics, defaults, and interactions undocumented.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Search KlickyMart merchant records.' It is specific enough for an agent to understand the core operation, but it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like find_agent_native or find_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 only usage clue is 'same filters as GET /q,' which is an external API reference rather than guidance. There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which sibling tools are alternatives.

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