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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful traits: it is non-executing and needs no auth or merchant ID. But it says nothing about pagination behavior despite having limit and cursor parameters, nothing about result ordering or empty-result behavior, and nothing about whether resolution is cached or live. For an unannotated tool this is thin.

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, no filler, and the core operation is front-loaded before the return-value summary. The negative constraint is appended efficiently. It is not padded, though the domain jargon makes it denser than its length suggests.

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?

The enumeration of return fields (versions, formats, prices, checkout references) usefully substitutes for the absent output schema, and the no-auth note covers a real prerequisite. What remains missing for a 3-parameter, unannotated, no-output-schema tool is any pagination contract and any tie-break to the competing lookup siblings.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does for the query parameter by stating it accepts 'provider-agent name or active resource text,' which is real added meaning. It says nothing at all about limit or cursor, leaving 2 of 3 parameters undocumented in both schema and prose.

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?

The verb 'resolve' plus 'public prepared-artifact resources' does convey a lookup operation, and the second sentence names concrete return content (versions, formats, prices, checkout references). However, the vocabulary never aligns with the tool name 'search_merchants,' and it says nothing to distinguish this from siblings like discover_merchant_offers or resolve_latest_merchant_offer. An agent must guess which of the three lookup tools is correct.

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?

The clause 'does not execute tasks or require a merchant ID or bearer key' implicitly excludes buy_prepared_artifact and the credential-rotation siblings, which is genuine routing value. But no sibling is named and no positive condition ('use this when you have a provider-agent name and want a catalog of offerings') is stated. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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