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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses exclusions (SameDayDesk-owned supply, unresolved routes), states it uses no credentials or wallet, sends no seller POST or payment, reads no paid response body, and returns only a query digest. This is strong behavioral disclosure, though it doesn't explicitly mention rate limits or error handling, but for a search tool this is quite thorough.

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 moderately long but every sentence provides value: it specifies sources, matching criteria, alternative tools, exclusions, and behavioral guarantees. The alternative tool list adds length but is crucial for usage guidance. 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?

Given 4 params with 100% schema coverage, output schema present, and no nested objects, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage boundaries, exclusions, side-effect guarantees, and return nature. The output schema handles return values, so no gap there.

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% for all four parameters, each with detailed descriptions including constraints and purpose. The description adds the context that 'query' is a capability intent and that 'requiredPaths' must be dotted success-response paths, but these are largely echoed in schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does 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?

Description clearly states it searches Agent402 and MPP for paid machine services that match capability intent and guarantee required JSON response paths. It names the specific resources and the filtering criterion, distinguishing it from sibling audit 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?

Explicitly names three sibling tools and specifies their use cases versus this tool: agent_discoverability_audit for measuring a known seller's catalog reach, seller_integrity_audit when a specific seller route is known, and payment_offer_preflight when an exact callable GET URL exists. This gives clear when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance.

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