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

Annotations cover readOnlyHint and destructiveHint. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the returned fields, the routing to search for listings, and a crucial security warning that seller text is untrusted and never instructions. That last point alone is high-value behavioral guidance.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then read-only status, output fields, routing, and security warning. Every sentence earns its place, though the field enumeration plus routing makes it slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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?

Complete for a read-only catalog search: purpose, output shape, sibling hand-off, and an untrusted-data warning. Without an output schema, the field enumeration is a reasonable stand-in, and no critical gaps remain.

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%, so limit and query are already documented in the schema with ranges and examples. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what structured data provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (finds) and resource (shops on GenesisPay), distinguishing it from siblings like catalog_search and catalog_trending. The description also enumerates the returned fields, making scope concrete.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: to see a shop's listings, call genesispay_catalog_search with shop set to its id. This is a clear hand-off to a sibling, though it doesn't state when to prefer this tool over trending or reviews.

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