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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the genuinely useful detail that prices are denominated in the organization's currency, which affects how an agent interprets salesPrice filters. It says nothing about result volume, pagination defaults or whether facets consume much of the response.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and no filler. It is efficient but borders on under-specification rather than tightness — there is room to add guidance without bloat.

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 10-parameter search tool with an output schema and two entirely undocumented parameters (strictAuthority, advertiserProjectId), three sentences are insufficient. An agent gets no guidance on what strictAuthority changes about matching behavior or what advertiserProjectId scopes, and those gaps are not covered elsewhere.

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 ~70% and the schema itself documents page, limit, search, filters and orderBy in depth with examples, so it carries most of the load. The description's one param-relevant contribution is the currency note for price filters; it says nothing about the two undocumented parameters (strictAuthority, advertiserProjectId) or about the mandatory context/llm_model analytics fields.

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+resource: 'Search the publisher marketplace.' That is clear and distinguishable from add-to-cart, place-order and get-content-products siblings. It stops short of naming any sibling or defining scope boundaries (e.g. what marketplace listings are covered).

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?

'Filters, domain search, and sort are optional' implies the tool can be used as a plain paginated browse, which is useful. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as get-content-products or add-to-cart for downstream actions.

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