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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context by disclosing the return shape ('smallest monthly figure on each pricing page and the page URL'), which matters because there is no output schema. It still omits pagination behavior and result-count semantics.

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?

Two tight sentences, with the scope and lookup modes front-loaded and the return shape following. No filler.

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?

For a simple search tool with annotations covering safety and the description covering return semantics, an agent has enough to call it correctly. Remaining gaps are minor: combining query and category, pagination, and empty-result behavior.

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 67%, with query and category documented in-schema while limit is not. The description restates the name/category lookup modes and expands the category examples slightly ('design'), but adds no syntax or constraint detail, and the undocumented limit parameter (default 15, max 50) is not addressed. Baseline 3 for partial 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 ('Search 300+ SaaS vendors... by name or category') and even names the data source (SaaS Price Watch), so the purpose is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from pricing-oriented siblings such as get_vendor_pricing or recent_price_changes, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 only implied: the agent can gather that name/keyword or category lookups are supported, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives like get_vendor_pricing for a single vendor or recent_price_changes for deltas.

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