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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds behavioral context by specifying what the tool returns (versions, category/market coverage, per-record verification, source policy, operational check links) and by providing workflow guidance about not repeating it before every seller request.

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 clear front-loading: 'Use when...' immediately states context. The second sentence adds return details and a sibling pointer, with no 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 simple one-parameter read-only tool, the description covers usage, exclusions, return content, and even directs to a sibling tool for the proper workflow. The presence of an output schema and complete annotations means nothing critical is missing.

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 already provides full coverage for the single `language` parameter, including enum and default. The description adds no parameter-specific details, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states the tool's purpose: to inspect scope, source trust, or live-service details, and lists specific return types (versions, coverage, verification, source policy, links). It distinguishes itself from the sibling market_access_check by instructing to use that tool for Stage 1 product requests.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when the user or agent needs to inspect scope, source trust or live-service details' and warns 'do not repeat it before every seller request.' It also directs to start ordinary product requests at Stage 1 with market_access_check, thereby clarifying when not to use this tool.

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