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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, non-idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description's additions ('evidence preservation', 'freshness-aware market memory', 'source diversity') are unelaborated jargon that don't tell an agent concretely what happens during a call, what freshness means, or how diversity affects results.

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?

Only two sentences, so it is compact and the scope statement is front-loaded, but the second sentence is buried under buzzword stacking rather than actionable detail. Short isn't the same as efficient here—the words spent on 'evidence preservation' and 'market memory' would be better spent on the identifier parameters.

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-value explanation isn't required, and the required domain/query pair is straightforward. But for an 11-parameter open-world search tool with 9% schema coverage, the description leaves the identifier vocabulary—the tool's central decision point—entirely undocumented.

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 only 9% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely fails. Seven overlapping identifier parameters (mpn, sku, asin, gtin, isbn, oe_number, part_number, manufacturer_part_number) are never explained or disambiguated; 'exact identity is required' gestures at them but doesn't say which to use when or how they combine.

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 verb+resource ('Search all generic physical-product domains') is identifiable, and 'generic' hints at a distinction from niche siblings like parts_search, anime_market or merchant_offer_search. However, the sentence is padded with unexplained qualifiers ('evidence preservation, freshness-aware market memory, source diversity') and never explicitly separates this tool from product_resolve or parts_search.

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 only guidance is 'Exact identity is required for safety-critical or compatibility-sensitive selection,' which hints at when identifier inputs matter but gives no instruction on when to choose this tool over the ~24 siblings. No alternatives are named and no exclusion cases are stated.

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