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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context about the returned capability data, including provider grouping and sample domains, though it does not discuss rate limits or output shape in detail.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concrete usage conditions and a specific alternative. Every sentence contributes useful routing or capability information without unnecessary repetition.

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 parameterless read-only capability-inspection tool, the description covers what it returns and when to call it. Since an output schema exists, it does not need to enumerate return fields, and the remaining guidance is 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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to explain beyond the schema. The description correctly does not invent parameter details; baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 specific verb and resource: it shows what the account supports, including active-search marketplaces, public catalogs with monetization flags, and convertible routes grouped by provider. It also names related tools (search_products, convert_links) so an agent can distinguish this capability-inspection tool from actual search or conversion tools.

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?

It gives explicit triggers: use when a search or conversion fails because a site is not configured, or when the user asks what the bot can do. It also routes the agent to convert_links for checking whether a specific domain converts, which is a clear alternative for a related need.

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