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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it discloses that results are synthetic, the call is sandbox-only, and no live provider call or real payment occurs. It does not cover error handling or authorization, but the safety-critical behavior is explicitly stated.

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 short and front-loads the main behavior before the request instructions. The two required-field statements are slightly repetitive and awkwardly inconsistent, but there is minimal filler.

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 tool with a very sparse input schema and no annotations, the description provides key safety context and a required-field list, but the imprecise 'capability id field(s)' and missing field semantics leave an agent unable to construct the request with full confidence. The output schema helps, but request construction remains under-specified.

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 schema only defines a generic request object with 0% field coverage, and the description compensates by naming required fields: schema_version, data_mode, fixture_id, query, limit. However, it leaves 'capability id field(s)' vague and does not explain each field's format or allowed values, and the second sentence's parenthetical omits query and limit.

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 clearly identifies a product keyword search that returns bounded synthetic product candidates from a keyword intent, giving a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish this invoke tool from discover_product_keyword_search_v0, but the core purpose is understandable.

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 states the sandbox-only execution context and explicitly declares no live provider call and no real payment, giving clear conditions for safe use. It also lists the required request fields and instructs passing the full request object, though it does not mention when to prefer this over the discover_* sibling.

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