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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior — a PA-API path with a fallback to deep-link cards plus catalogMatches, and the quirk that Amazon URLs omit tag= until tagConfigured is true. It stops short of covering failures, rate limits, or empty-result handling.

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?

Four short sentences, purpose front-loaded, zero filler. The trailing 'OpenAPI: searchAmazon' and internal jargon (PA-API, catalogMatches, tagConfigured) are dense but each carries information an agent needs.

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?

With six parameters and no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so by naming both result modes (products vs. deep-link cards + catalogMatches). Only failure behavior and result-count/pagination expectations are left unaddressed.

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 coverage is 83% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning on top: role and budgetBand are framed as a paired filter, and marketplace/locale are flagged as mandatory for correct output. It doesn't clarify limit semantics or how role changes ranking.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search Amazon'), a concrete resource ('home-office desk gear'), and the scope (the user's marketplace). It is trivially distinguishable from siblings like resolve_product, get_catalog, and add_desk_item, and it even maps itself to the underlying OpenAPI operation.

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?

Offers directive guidance ('ALWAYS pass marketplace + locale', 'Filter by role + budgetBand') but never states when to prefer this over resolve_product or get_catalog, nor any exclusion conditions. Usage must be inferred from the purpose sentence.

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