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

Annotations already establish the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, but the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: filters AND together, substring-no-stemming token matching, the zero-hit `searchHint` behavior with live catalog vocabulary, compact-row returns, and an explicit prompt-injection warning that provider-authored names/descriptions/tags are untrusted data. That is well beyond what the annotations disclose.

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?

A single dense paragraph that front-loads what the tool searches and then moves to filter semantics; almost every clause carries operational information. It is on the long side for a list tool, but there is no filler or repetition.

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 spelled out, and the description still adds the useful note about compact rows and the zero-hit searchHint. The main gap is the four parameters with no explanation in either the schema or the description, which leaves parts of the invocation contract underspecified.

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 carry the burden and it does so for only four of eight parameters: text matching semantics and the controlled-id expectations for categoryFamily, serviceType, and jurisdiction (ISO 3166-1/3166-2/'global', with the note that country and subdivision filters match each other's listings). limit, pricingMode, persistentAsset, and providerAgentId are never mentioned, so half the surface remains undocumented.

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 and resource with scope: 'Search the currently admitted, purchasable Daski outcomes.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling that returns detail ('Full detail ... via daski_get_outcome'), so an agent can separate the search tool from the fetch tool without opening either schema.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance for the text filter ('use product words (llc, domain, mailbox), not sentences'), names the controlled-vocabulary parameters and their expected id formats, and routes to daski_get_outcome when full detail is needed. The alternative and the condition that selects it are both stated.

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