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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral detail: one row per product, including page and quote, plus a coverage count of digested datasheets. This goes beyond annotations by describing the shape and limitations of results.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main purpose appears first, followed by the output shape and coverage. The long list of example keys is somewhat dense but useful for disambiguating the key parameter. No wasted sentences.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains return behavior: rows with product, page, quote, and coverage. It does not detail invalid-key handling or pagination, but for a read-only search tool with safety annotations, those omissions are minor and not blocking.

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?

With only 33% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining key as a fact key and providing concrete examples. It does not elaborate on category beyond the enum, and contains remains only documented in the schema. The added examples help, but some parameter meaning still relies on the schema or 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?

The description clearly states that the tool searches one fact key across an entire category and reports which products state it and with which value. This gives a specific resource and scope, and the examples (connector, trl, lead_time) reinforce intent. It does not explicitly compare itself to sibling tools, but the category-wide, keyed scope is distinguishable by itself.

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool when you need a fact key across a whole category, as opposed to a single product or open-ended question. However, it does not name alternatives such as get_datasheet_digest or ask_datasheet, nor does it state when not to use this tool. The guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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