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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key safety behavior: read-only, no provider call, no payment. However, it does not describe what the discovery result contains beyond the listed facets, nor does it mention failure behavior or rate limits; the output schema exists but does not substitute for semantic behavioral context.

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, with the action and scope front-loaded and the safety qualifier placed at the end. Every clause earns its place, with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 zero-parameter, read-only discovery tool with an output schema, the description provides the essential selection context: what capability it covers and that it will not make a provider call or incur payment. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly instructing to use it before invoking product_detail_v0, but the current text is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100% for an empty schema, so the baseline is 4. No parameter explanation is needed, and the description does not mislead about inputs.

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 ('Discover and inspect') and names the exact resource ('SeekAPI capability product_detail_v0'), then enumerates the facets it covers: identity, agent job, contract, pricing, runtime, failure, trust, and invocation. It also distinguishes itself from invoke_* siblings with 'Read-only; no provider call or payment.'

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 phrase 'Read-only; no provider call or payment' clearly signals this is for inspection rather than execution, which is useful usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives like invoke_product_detail_v0 or other discover_* tools, but the sibling list and capability name make the intended context reasonably clear.

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