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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: 'Only validated rows are served' and each item includes claim/market status, which are not derivable from the annotations and inform the agent's expectations.

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 two sentences with no waste. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds essential data behavior without redundancy.

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, return values are covered. However, the description omits several parameter semantics (decision_id, limit, product_type clarification), leaving an incomplete picture for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly across all parameters.

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 explains query (by product name, brand, product type, or lane) and lane (optional with allowed values), but leaves decision_id and limit unexplored, and product_type's relationship to query is ambiguous. This is only partial compensation.

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 description uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('products cleared for this market'), and further clarifies it as 'validated product records in a market' with defined query dimensions. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_item (single-item retrieval) and compare_items (comparison).

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 description implicitly conveys when to use it (to find validated/cleared products in a market) and how to query, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools. No exclusion or routing guidance is provided.

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