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

The annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds useful context beyond annotations: the tool is free, returns candidate options rather than final answers, and has a deliberate boundary where paid-scope questions must be routed elsewhere. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded, starting with the core value proposition ('FREE candidate discovery') before moving to usage context and exclusions. Every clause contributes decision-relevant information with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 discovery tool with a rich output schema and comprehensive safety annotations, the description covers the essential facts: free access, when to use it, multilingual/vague query handling, and the boundary to paid specialists. Nothing needed for correct invocation or routing 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?

The schema already documents query thoroughly with examples and a rich description, but the lang parameter only has an enum with no explanation. The description mentions 'multilingual queries,' which hints at language handling, but it never explains when or how to set lang. With 50% schema coverage and no explicit language-parameter guidance, the description only partially compensates.

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 description opens with 'FREE candidate discovery for physical Japanese anime collectibles,' naming a specific action, object type, and cost model. It further clarifies scope by stating it handles vague and multilingual queries and explicitly positions itself as a pre-purchase discovery step rather than a final valuation tool.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: when the user wants options or when the agent needs to inspect alternatives before paying. It also gives clear exclusions, telling the agent not to stop here for value, rarity, authenticity, BUY/WAIT, or purchase-route queries and to select the matching paid specialist tool or Full Intelligence instead.

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