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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral content beyond them: the empty-list-with-note response and the disclosure that results are not ranked by commission, which signals the ordering is not commercially biased.

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 tight sentences with zero padding. The core purpose leads, the fallback/empty behavior follows, and the sibling routing plus the commission caveat close it out; each sentence carries distinct information.

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-field details need not be in the description, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The description rounds this out with the empty-result case and the commission caveat, though it leaves brand-name input format unexplained.

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% for the single brand_name parameter, so the description carries the burden. It implies a single brand identifier ('for one brand') but gives no format, casing, or matching rules, so it only partially compensates for the gap.

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 ('List alternatives for one brand') and narrows it with two precise scope qualifiers: editor-approved and backed by a cited basis. It also distinguishes itself from the similarly-named sibling browse_alternatives, so an agent can pick between them without opening either 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?

Explicitly names the alternative tool (browse_alternatives) and the condition that selects it (listing by category rather than by brand). It also tells the agent what to expect when no alternatives qualify, so the caller knows the empty case is not an error.

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