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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses that the tool returns a page, never a total, and warns against the confidence trap of counting page results as a total — a genuinely valuable behavioral caution. It does not cover every trait (return format, currency of price bounds, rate limits), but the most consequential behavior is clearly exposed.

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?

Four sentences, no filler: purpose, usage examples, behavioral limitation, and sibling routing each earn their place. The critical warning about page-vs-total is front-loaded near the usage guidance where it will actually affect reasoning.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential operational facts: when to use it, what it cannot do, and which sibling to call instead. Minor gaps remain — currency denomination for min/max_price (implied shekels via 'Israeli businesses') and what 'spread' ordering concretely yields — but nothing that would cause a confidently wrong call.

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 67%: max_price and min_price lack schema descriptions, and the description compensates by explaining the price-range browsing mode with the example 'anything under 50'. It also maps category to the phrase 'inside one category' and clarifies sort intent ('cheapest first, most expensive first'). This adds meaning beyond the schema's enum labels.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Walk the AgentFeed catalogue of Israeli businesses without naming a product.' It enumerates the four browsing modes (cheapest, priciest, price range, category) and explicitly separates itself from search ('Use this for questions search cannot answer'), differentiating it from search_products among the siblings.

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?

Provides concrete trigger examples ('what is your cheapest product', 'anything under 50', 'show me cat food by price') that a caller can match against a user question. It also gives an explicit exclusion: when asked for totals or stock counts, route to get_store_info instead. This is exactly the when/when-not/alternatives guidance the dimension asks for.

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