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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: every result carries the backing source, and results are 'not ranked by commission' — a disclosure that materially affects how an agent should interpret ordering.

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, then filters, then the two behavioral notes, with no filler sentences. It reads as one dense block rather than cleanly separated clauses, but every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers filter behavior plus the sourcing guarantee. Given the low complexity of a three-parameter browse tool, the only real omissions are the 'limit' parameter and sibling differentiation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does for two of three parameters: 'structure' is explained with example values and 'query' is explained as matching name or substituted category. The 'limit' parameter is never mentioned, leaving one gap, but the compensation for the undocumented filters is strong.

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 ('browse alternatives to mainstream shopping') and defines the scope precisely by enumerating the seller structures included (employee-owned, cooperative, credit union, B Corp, family-owned) with a 'cited basis' requirement. It does not, however, differentiate itself from near-identical siblings such as find_alternatives or responsible_alternatives, so an agent cannot tell them apart from the text alone.

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?

Usage is implied through the filter semantics ('structure filters by kind', 'query filters by words in the name or the category it substitutes for'), which tells the agent how to narrow results but not when to choose this tool over find_alternatives or responsible_alternatives. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-tool routing are given.

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