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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external-network behavior are covered. The description adds only the marketplace-scoping context; it says nothing about result volume, the limit cap, or how out-of-marketplace results are handled. The 'OpenAPI: searchAmazon' fragment is an implementation reference rather than agent-facing behavior.

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?

Front-loaded and short: purpose first, hard requirement second. The trailing 'OpenAPI: searchAmazon' fragment is the only borderline element, but it is brief and does not bury the main point.

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?

Seven parameters, three unlabeled enums, no output schema, and no description of what a result looks like or how limit affects it. For a search tool the agent must construct a well-targeted query with optional facets, this leaves too much unspecified.

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 only 57%, so the description must compensate — and it does not. It reinforces that marketplace and locale are mandatory, but three enum parameters (occasion, giftCategory, relationship) carry no schema description and no explanation in the description, leaving 'graduation-dinner' vs 'white-cap-party' or 'keepsakes' vs 'luxury' entirely to inference.

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) and resource (Amazon gifts for Studenten/studentexamen) plus the scoping context (the user's marketplace). It is clearly a product-search tool, distinct from the wishlist/catalog siblings, though it does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead for catalog browsing.

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?

'ALWAYS pass marketplace + locale' is an invocation constraint, not usage routing. Nothing says when to pick this over get_catalog or resolve_product, or when a search is inappropriate (e.g., resolving a known product).

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