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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful non-obvious context: relevance ranking is keyword + semantic, per-source reaction counts are never combined, and Tangerine Index does not rate products. That said, for a lookup tool most of this is result-shape detail rather than behavior an agent must know to call it correctly.

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 purpose and usage trigger, with filters and ranking behavior following logically. The closing sentence describing the per-result shape is somewhat redundant given the output schema exists, so it is dense but not maximally lean.

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?

Covers the query semantics, ranking behavior, per-source number caveats, and hand-off to get_product, which is everything an agent needs given an output schema already exists. Nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema, including the example for `need` and the filter semantics of `forms` and `open_source`. The description reinforces the plain-English phrasing and the example query but adds little beyond what the schema already states; baseline 3 applies.

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 (find existing products) and adds a concrete scope the siblings don't share: products launched since Nov 30, 2022. It explicitly routes full-detail lookups to get_product, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings.

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 when-to-use trigger ('check here before building something new'), tells the agent how to phrase input ('describe the job in short plain English', English preferred), and names the alternative (get_product) with the condition that selects it.

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