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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose what kind of records come back ('matching GPU rigs, server racks...'), which is useful, but says nothing about result limits, pagination, ranking/fuzzy matching of the query, or authentication requirements.

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 short lines, front-loaded with the verb+resource and followed by result types and the filter vocabulary. Every line carries information; only a small amount of polish (line fragments rather than prose) keeps it from a 5.

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 detailed, and the description correctly spends its budget on scope and filters. However, for a search tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% schema parameter documentation, the absence of query semantics and result/pagination behavior leaves real gaps.

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 usefully enumerates the accepted category values (compute, servers, storage, networking, support), which the schema lacks as an enum, but leaves 'query' entirely undefined — no indication of what fields it matches (name, SKU, description) or matching semantics.

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+resource ('Search Salvage & Surplus product catalog') and enumerates the result types (GPU rigs, server racks, drive arrays, network gear), which makes the tool's scope immediately legible. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling get_product, which an agent must choose between for discovery vs. single-item lookup.

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 explains a filter mechanic ('Filter by category: ...') but never states when to use search_products versus get_product, nor any prerequisites or conditions. An agent must infer the discovery-vs-detail split from the tool names alone.

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