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

Annotations cover read-only and open-world behavior, and the description adds non-obvious traits: explicit price, payment rails, success-only billing, and the fact that it lists rather than runs actors. These details materially affect invocation and cost.

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 compact sentences front-load purpose, then scope limitation, then pricing. Every sentence supplies decision-relevant information without waste.

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?

With an output schema, annotations, and fully described parameters, the description supplies the remaining essentials: search scope, non-execution limitation, and cost model. Nothing critical is missing for correct selection.

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 100% for the two parameters, so the schema already documents q and limit. The description mentions keyword search and returned fields but does not add syntax, defaults, or validation meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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: searches the public Apify Store for scraper actors by keyword and enumerates returned metadata. The added 'Lists actors only; it does not run them or return product data' clearly distinguishes it from sibling ecommerce product/scraper 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?

Clearly frames the context as discovery of scraper actors and explicitly excludes running them or returning product data, reducing misuse. It does not name an alternative tool or give a concrete 'use when' condition, so it is not fully explicit.

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