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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, openWorld, non-destructive), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: results are ranked and capped, price bounds are UGX, explicit price sorts return a single unscored page, and results are links whose freshness/condition/seller details must be verified at the source. That is a substantive disclosure of result quality and data-freshness limits.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, and each subsequent sentence carries distinct information (synonym format, ranking/capping, currency, verification caveat, sort behavior, sibling routing). Slightly dense, with minor overlap between the UGX note and the schema's own 'price in UGX' descriptions, but no wasted sentence.

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 an 11-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what matters: what comes back (ranked, capped listings with original links), what the price units are, and how sorts change result shape. The only meaningful gap is pagination behavior for the page parameter, which neither the schema nor the description explains.

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 91%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds nuance the schema does not: synonyms must be complete alternate item phrases (not partial tokens), with a concrete example. Price-unit and sort-behavior notes reinforce the schema rather than duplicate it. It does not explain the page parameter, whose schema entry has no description.

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 (search marketplace product listings) with a geographic scope (Uganda) and a user goal (compare options). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling search_businesses, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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 when-to-use-this vs when-to-use-alternative guidance: 'For businesses or service providers instead, use search_businesses.' It also supplies operational guidance on how to use synonyms (complete alternate phrases with a worked example) and when price sorts behave differently, leaving little to inference.

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