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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly enumerates what the fact sheet includes (pricing tiers with gotchas, integration depth scores, AI capabilities, affiliate terms, conflicts), labels provenance, and explains freshness calculation (90-day window). It also discloses the not-found response behavior, which is critical for agents.

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 dense but well-organized: it opens with the core purpose, lists key content areas, provides usage context, and closes with the not-found behavior. Every sentence adds value; 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?

Given the tool's complexity (a structured fact sheet with many fields), the description covers the essential content categories, provenance labeling, freshness, and the not-found case. Since there is no output schema, the description adequately informs the agent of what to expect in the response.

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 input schema already documents the single parameter `tool` with a clear description and examples, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('full vendor fact sheet'), and explicitly differentiates from the sibling `get_tool_details` by noting it is 'strictly more detail'. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from similar tools.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when an agent or buyer needs the structured machine-readable view of a tool', and names the alternative (`get_tool_details`). It also describes the fallback behavior when no fact sheet exists, including a pointer to a submission endpoint.

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