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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: seed_brand constrains results to the same root category and results must show 'real sales presence'. However, it does not disclose how competition is measured, data recency, or whether results are marketplace-scoped, so the added behavioral detail is moderate.

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 three dense, well-ordered sentences: what it does, its flagship status, and when/how to use it with seed_brand. There is no filler, and the most important selection guidance is front-loaded.

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 an 18-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main selection triggers and the critical seed_brand behavior, while defaults and filter semantics live in the schema. It is complete enough for an agent to select the tool and make a reasonable first invocation, though it does not describe the result record shape or explicitly route away from similar siblings.

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 56%, leaving several parameters like limit, brand_contains, velocity filters, and control-score filters undocumented. The description adds practical meaning for seed_brand with concrete user-phrase examples, and the trigger 'undercompeted brands under $50' hints at price filtering. It does not compensate for all undocumented parameters, but it adds value beyond the schema for the key sourcing intent.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Find brands with low seller competition but real sales presence' and reinforces it as 'the flagship sourcing discovery tool.' It does not explicitly differentiate from closely related siblings like find_sourcing_opportunities or category_undercompeted_brands, so it stops short of 5, but the intent is unmistakable.

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 explicit trigger examples: 'find brands with few sellers', 'low competition brands', 'undercompeted brands under $50', and 'find me something to sell'. It also explains when to use seed_brand with concrete examples like 'brands like Ninja' and 'low competition in the same category as OXO'. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement or named alternatives, so it is not a 5.

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