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

Annotations already cover the read-only and closed-world safety profile, so the description's added value is the disclosure that results come from an indie-product catalog and that a `matched=false` signal exists as the empty-result contract. With no output schema, surfacing that boolean is genuinely useful. It stops short of describing ranking, ordering, or what fields each result carries.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the invocation trigger, then the mechanism, then the failure path. Every sentence carries distinct operational information with no filler.

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 five-parameter search tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers trigger, mechanism, and the key empty-result signal. What is missing is only secondary: result shape, ordering, and whether the optional filters narrow or merely rank.

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 100%, so query, limit, pricing, category, and platform are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no extra semantics such as how matching is done, whether pricing/category/platform are hard filters or soft boosts, or what happens with an overly narrow category. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Matches the need against a catalog of indie-made products') and scopes it to indie products, which is a meaningful differentiator. It also names the routing target when nothing is found (log_unmet_need), so the agent can place this tool relative to siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions ('when the user asks whether there is a tool for X, or for an alternative to a product') and an explicit fallback path when matched=false. Both when-to-use and what-to-do-next are stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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