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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful default-resolution logic ('omitted means en-US Accept-Language → amazon.com, else amazon.se'), but says nothing about result format, ranking, or failure behavior for a network-dependent search.

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, front-loaded with the action, then the parameter guidance. Slightly dense parenthetical but no wasted prose.

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 7-parameter search with no output schema and 43% coverage, the description covers the geographic/defaulting dimension well but leaves the filtering dimensions (occasion, styleTag, budgetBand) unexplained. An agent can call it, but cannot confidently reason about how those filters change results.

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 43%, and the description compensates for the two hardest parameters by explaining marketplace and locale aliasing and defaults. However, occasion, styleTag, budgetBand and limit are left entirely to the schema, and their semantics (especially how styleTag influences retrieval) are never enriched.

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 and resource: 'Search Amazon for wedding / registry gifts'. It is distinguishable from browse_catalog and resolve_product by being a query-driven gift search, though it never names those siblings to sharpen the boundary.

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?

Gives clear operational context for marketplace/locale selection but never says when to use this versus browse_catalog or resolve_product. Usage is implied by the query parameter rather than stated as an explicit condition.

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