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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety bar is met. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: "nothing is run or charged" and that products "bill per valid result" at execution time, plus the exact return fields. It doesn't cover pagination behavior or result ordering, which is a minor omission given the limit/offset params.

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: purpose and scope first, then return values, then the alternative tool and cost posture. Every clause carries information an agent needs, and nothing repeats the schema or annotations verbatim.

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, four-parameter search with no output schema, the description covers what to search, what comes back, what it costs, and where to go for pricing. Nothing needed to select or invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 100%, with all four parameters (limit, query, category, offset) documented inline, so the schema carries the load. The description adds only indirect semantics, implying text matching and category filtering via the returned fields, and gives no sizing or query-syntax guidance beyond the schema. 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?

A specific verb ("Search") plus a precisely scoped resource ("catalog of ready-made data products... site scrapers, pipelines, use-case APIs"), with the billing model stated so the agent knows these are runnable products, not raw data. The return fields and the pointer to alterlab_store_get clearly separate it from store_get, store_quote, and store_run.

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: use this to find catalog entries, and use alterlab_store_get for price and success rate, which establishes the discovery-then-detail workflow. It also states the tool is free and keyless, so no hesitation about cost. It does not mention the other store siblings (store_quote, store_run), so the lifecycle after lookup is only partially covered.

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