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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it answers only from manuals RoboTrunk has read and checked, never guesses, and returns verbatim passages rather than paraphrases. The exhaustive error-recovery mapping (PRODUCT_NOT_FOUND, INVALID_REQUEST, RATE_LIMITED with a 60s wait, not_covered, MANUAL_ASK_FAILED) is exactly the behavioral disclosure the readOnly/idempotent hints cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and return shape, then usage, then exclusions, then error recovery. It is dense and long, but nearly every sentence carries operational value; the only mild bloat is the trailing 'Next:' and guide pointers, which are cheap to keep.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so fully (verbatim passage, manual link, page, section heading, or an explicit not-covered signal). Combined with the error taxonomy and follow-up routing (get_product, submit_feedback), an agent has everything needed to call and recover correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters and the baseline would be 3. The description adds modest value: it clarifies product_id provenance ('try a product you hold a product_id for') and supplies a full example call showing merchant/product_id/question formatting, nudging it just above baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (asks) and resource (one product's maker manual) and specifies the return shape: the matching passage word for word with link, page, and section heading. It explicitly distinguishes itself from browsing by naming the sibling search_catalog, so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

Gives concrete trigger conditions ('installation, weight and height limits, age range, care, safety') plus the prerequisite (a product you hold a product_id for), an explicit exclusion ('Not for browsing'), and the alternative to use instead (search_catalog). Nothing is left to inference.

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