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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description only needs to add operational context. It does: results are sorted by score/recency/trending momentum, and each product should be linked via websiteUrl or peerpushUrl. It does not say how filters combine or how many results are returned, but the added return-handling guidance is genuine value beyond the annotations.

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 sentences, each doing distinct work: purpose, routing condition with example, and return/linking guidance. The scoping contrast is front-loaded. Slightly dense in the first sentence's criteria list, but nothing is padding.

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?

With 7 optional parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description covers what an agent needs: what it returns, how it is sorted, and how to present links. The remaining gap is filter combination semantics (AND vs OR) and result limits, though limit/max is documented in the schema.

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 100%, so all seven parameters are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description mirrors the schema's dimensions (use case, audience, platform, pricing, category) and glosses "trending" as "trending momentum," but adds no syntax, combination, or matching rules beyond what the schema states.

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 ("Browses the PeerPush catalog") and immediately scopes it to structured criteria (use case, audience, platform, pricing, category). It contrasts itself against keyword search, which is what the sibling finder tool does, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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 an explicit when-to-use condition ("the user wants to explore products matching specific filters rather than a keyword search") plus a concrete example query. It stops short of naming the sibling tools it competes with (peerpush_find_product, peerpush_trending, peerpush_new_launches) or stating when filters are the wrong choice.

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