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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: it discloses the return contents and a hard boundary ("Never returns contact details"), plus why contact is out of scope.

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?

Three tight sentences: what it returns, when to use it, and a boundary. Purpose is front-loaded and there is 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and the description nonetheless previews them. Combined with explicit usage context and a contact-details boundary, an agent has everything needed to call 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 description coverage is 0% and the description never explains the seller_id argument (format, source, or how to obtain it). With only one self-evident parameter, the gap is minor, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema here.

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 resource ("Public profile of a Whoppah seller") and enumerates the exact fields returned (display name, seller type, biography, expert-seller status, review score with excerpts). No sibling tool touches seller data, so an agent can route unambiguously.

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 trigger: "Use it when the buyer asks whether a seller can be trusted." It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling overlaps the seller-trust use case, so the guidance is sufficient without them.

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