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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses important behaviors: it returns exactly 5 ranked sources, is not a live inventory guarantee, and costs $0.01 USDC via x402. This goes beyond merely saying 'search' and helps the agent set expectations about output and cost.

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 crisp sentences, zero fluff, and the most important scoping detail is front-loaded. The cost and caveat are placed after the core behavior, which keeps the main purpose immediately visible.

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 single-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the key points: result count, source type, caveat about live inventory, and cost. It does not describe the exact return shape, but '5 ranked sources' gives enough expectation for an agent to proceed.

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%, so the description must compensate. It implies that 'query' should be a product-related search term, but it does not explain query formatting, examples, or whether the query should target brand/model/category. Some meaning is added, but not enough to fully document the parameter.

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 specifies a concrete action ('Find') and a clear resource ('5 ranked public-web product, price, specification, and review sources'). This differentiates it from siblings like news_search, company_search, and generic web_search by scoping to product-related research.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when the agent needs product, price, specification, or review information from the public web. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusions, but the product-focused scope gives enough contextual signal for selection.

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