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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose matching behavior (case-insensitive, substring, canonical name) plus an important scoping caveat that EAN is null for self-serve keys because EANs are Salling-sourced and partner-restricted. It doesn't mention pagination, rate limits, or ordering of results, which keeps it below a 5.

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 the action and the routing instruction, then matching semantics and return fields. The parenthetical about Salling-sourced EANs is slightly dense but still earns its place; no filler sentences.

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 available, the description enumerates the returned fields (id, name, ean, size with volumeMl/unitCount/quantityUnit) so the agent knows what it gets back. Matching rules, prerequisites, and result-field caveats are all covered for a two-parameter lookup tool.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: 'q' is matched as a case-insensitive substring against the canonical product name, which the schema property text does not state. The 'limit' parameter is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable at full coverage.

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 and resource: 'Resolve a product NAME to its ShelfAtlas id and EAN'. It also names the sibling tools it precedes (find_cheapest_offers, search_catalog_offers), so an agent can distinguish the role without opening any 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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition — use this BEFORE the offer-search tools when you only have a product name, not an id or barcode — and rules out the case where an id or barcode is already known. That directly routes the agent between siblings.

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