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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool returns and implies read-only search behavior, but it does not mention result grouping, ordering, or potential limitations. The example queries add some context but leave room for richer behavioral detail.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and result categories, and includes concrete examples. Every sentence contributes useful information with no redundancy or 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 search tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what results are returned and provides usage examples. It covers the essential context for an agent to select and invoke the tool, given that parameters are fully documented in the schema.

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 input schema describes both parameters fully (100% coverage), including query semantics and limit constraints. The description does not add new parameter details beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 free-text search across the CompShop directory and lists the types of results returned (vendors, reports, job families, positions). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on open-ended discovery rather than specific lookups, and the examples reinforce the purpose.

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 explicitly provides usage context with example queries and frames the tool for open-ended discovery questions. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, but the examples imply when to use it over more structured siblings.

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