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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it sources from the seller's OWN connected catalog, excludes existing brands, and requires a connected store (Starter+). This goes beyond the annotations and informs the agent about data dependency and prerequisites.

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 reasonably concise at three sentences and front-loads the core purpose. The phrase 'Seeds Webotee's undercompeted-brand and underserved-niche engines' is jargon-heavy, but it is compact and quickly conveys the mechanism.

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 read-only suggestion tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main questions: what it does, its data source, prerequisite, and when to use it. It could be slightly clearer about the type of results returned, but nothing essential is missing for invoking it correctly.

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%: the single marketplace_id parameter is fully explained with valid values. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable because the schema carries the full burden. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: identifying what to source next adjacent to the seller's existing catalog, using their own connected catalog and excluding brands they already carry. This clearly distinguishes it from generic sourcing tools like find_sourcing_opportunities or find_undercompeted_brands by anchoring it to the seller's own data.

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 gives explicit example queries ('what should I source next', 'expand my catalog', 'adjacent opportunities') and a hard prerequisite (connected store, Starter+). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the use cases are concrete enough to guide selection.

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