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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value on top: the result ordering rule ('verified first, then claimed, then listed') and the dependency on a prior allow decision, neither of which the annotations express.

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 dense sentences that front-load the returned entity types and then the ordering rule, with no filler. Slightly compressed phrasing ('claim status — verified first, then claimed, then listed') asks the reader to parse a lot in one breath, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not owed. The prerequisite and ordering are covered, but with 0% parameter description coverage the description leaves lane and limit unexplained, which is a real gap for a six-parameter lookup tool.

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% across six parameters, so the description must carry the load. It does explain decision_id and implies the item/category alternates (gtin/query) and market, but leaves lane and limit entirely undescribed and gives no market format or query-matching semantics.

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?

Names a specific resource (verified makers/brand owners/distributors/importers) and what it returns (maker records with claim status), so the agent knows it retrieves supplier-side entities rather than buyers. It never states the verb explicitly ('find') nor distinguishes itself from the sibling find_verified_buyer beyond the supplier/buyer noun, so it stops short of a 5.

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 'Takes the decision_id of an allow decision' is a genuine prerequisite that tells the agent this tool is only callable downstream of an allow decision. However, no alternative tools are named (e.g., when to prefer search_cleared_items or find_verified_buyer) and no when-not condition is given.

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