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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety is covered. The adds that the tool returns 'qualitative commercial guidance, standardized-product links, and the custom-scope path,' which hints at the nature of output but doesn't disclose any additional behavioral expectations (e.g., no side effects, no input requirements). the annotations cover the core safety traits, the description provides modest added context, earning a 3.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that names three concrete outputs. It concise, front-loads the action, and contains no filler. Every word earns its place, and it's immediately scannable for an agent.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, annotations that cover the safety profile, and an output schema (as indicated), the description is nearly complete. It explains the high-level result types, and the output schema handles structure. The only gap is lack of usage context, but that's more of a usage-guideline concern than completeness of the tool's purpose. For a zero-param, read tool, this is adequate.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially complete (100% coverage). The description doesn't need to explain parameters since there are none. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter gets a baseline of 4, and there's no reason to deviate—nothing is unexplained about the invocation.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's action ('Return') and the resource scopecommercial guidance, standardized-product links, custom-scope path). It distinguishes the tool's output from typical siblings like get_resource or get_, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative. The purpose is specific and actionable, but falls short of 5 because doesn't explicitly differentiate from the closest sibling.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling toolse.g., get_buyer_guide, get_kit, list_res). It only states it returns, not the conditions that make it the right choice. An agent would to infer its applicability from the vague 'commercial guidance phrasing, which is insufficient given the breadth of alternatives.

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