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

Annotations already flag read-only and open-world, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: paid invocation at $0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc, with failed calls free, plus the 'first results page only' limitation. It omits rate limits and result-depth behavior, but the cost/auth model disclosure is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the payment and scope caveats. Dense but every clause (returned fields, first-page limit, per-call cost, free failures) carries actionable information; the payment-rails list is the only slightly indulgent detail.

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 present the description needn't explain return shapes, and annotations cover safety. What remains — data source, page-depth limit, and the x402 cost/payment obligation — is all disclosed, so an agent has everything needed to decide and call correctly.

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 q (2-60 chars) and limit (1-30, default 10) are fully documented in the schema. The description only adds that results come from the first page, which indirectly constrains limit but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (search results) and resource (WebstaurantStore restaurant/foodservice supplies) and enumerates the returned fields (item number, description, price per unit, product link). The site name distinguishes it from most siblings, though near-duplicates like ecommerce_restaurant_depot_sysco_us_foods_chef_store and ecommerce_uline are not explicitly referenced.

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?

Usage is implied by the query parameter and the 'first page only' scope note, but the description never says when to pick this site over the many other restaurant-supply siblings nor states any exclusions. Adequate but leaves routing to the agent's knowledge of the brand.

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