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

Annotations already establish that this is read-only. The description adds transparency by stating that it returns matching products and by naming the available sort behaviors: score, recency, and trending momentum. This gives the agent a clear picture of the tool's output behavior beyond the safety 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 compact sentences, each earning its place: what the tool does, when it should be used, and the kind of output it returns. The key distinction from keyword search is front-loaded and the example makes the intent instantly clear.

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 read-only discovery tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers filtering behavior, sorting behavior, and usage context. It could be slightly stronger by naming the most likely sibling alternatives, but nothing essential is missing.

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 input schema already covers all 7 parameters with descriptions and enums, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by listing the filter dimensions and giving a concrete example, but it does not significantly deepen parameter-level understanding beyond the schema.

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 names the resource (PeerPush catalog), a specific verb (Browses), and the filtering dimensions (use case, audience, platform, pricing, category). It also contrasts discovery with keyword search, helping differentiate it from peerpush_find_product and related siblings.

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 explicitly states when the tool is relevant: when users want structured filtering, with the helpful example 'free CLI tools for developers.' It notes that it is not for keyword search, though it does not explicitly name the sibling tool that should be used instead.

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