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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the 'demand search' context and the filter dimensions, which is useful but not rich behavioral detail. It doesn't mention pagination, result ordering, or that filters are combined, but the schema covers the filter semantics. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is fair.

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 zero waste. The core purpose and scope are front-loaded, and the filter list is compact. Every word earns its place.

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 a read-only, idempotent search tool with a 100%-covered schema and an output schema present, the description is nearly complete. It could mention that filters are combinable or that the result is a list, but the output schema and annotations cover most of what an agent needs. A 4 is appropriate because the description is sufficient but not exhaustive.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters with types, defaults, and examples. The description adds the phrase 'demand search' and lists the filter dimensions, but it doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the 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?

The description states a specific verb ('find'), a resource ('retailers'), and a domain ('demand search'), and immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools by noting it is a 'global cross-node' search. It also lists the three filter dimensions (region, node, parent_banner), which clearly differentiates it from find_makers and other sibling 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?

The description implies when to use this tool: when searching for retailers by region, node, or parent_banner. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the filter list and 'global cross-node' scope provide clear context. A 4 is appropriate because the usage context is clear but exclusions are not stated.

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