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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description explicitly states 'Read-only, no authentication required' and details exactly what data is returned, including edge cases like null feedback rating. It also explains how the seller id relates to search, adding practical behavioral context.

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 action and then provides a dense, useful enumeration of return fields and use cases. Every sentence adds meaningful information for tool selection or invocation, with 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?

With a single well-documented parameter, an output schema present, and annotations covering read-only behavior, the description fully covers what an agent needs: purpose, return contents, use cases, authentication requirements, and parameter sourcing.

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 fully documents sellerId and where it comes from (search or getProduct result). The description adds further value by noting the same seller id can be passed as search's seller_id filter and by tying the parameter to the shop_url use case.

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 ('Returns a seller's public profile') and enumerates the exact fields returned, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like sellers.status, but the public-profile framing and field list make the boundary reasonably clear.

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 gives clear use cases: judging seller reputation before advising a buyer and obtaining shop_url for browsing a seller's items. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the context is concrete enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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