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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds the 1-5 product scoping and exclusion of setup/troubleshooting, but discloses nothing about return format, rate limits, or auth needs beyond what annotations and the output schema already carry.

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 tight sentences that front-load the trigger condition and back-load the exclusion, with a concrete quoted example that grounds the usage. No wasted prose, though the exclusion sentence could name the competing siblings for sharper structure.

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 a present output schema and full parameter coverage, the description only needs to convey scope and when-to-use, which it does. A read-only, idempotent lookup tool is adequately framed; only the alternative-routing detail is thin.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented (tools, budget, seat_count, existing_tools). The description maps its fact categories onto those params but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (check facts) and resource (named software) and enumerates the concrete fact categories covered: plan prices, free plan, AI/MCP support, integration compatibility, and recent changes. It implicitly rules out comparison/decision tools via 'choosing between products,' though it doesn't name find_alternatives as a distinct sibling.

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?

Explicit when-to-use trigger ('when the buyer asks about 1 to 5 named products') plus an explicit when-not-to-use clause ('Do not use for setup, troubleshooting or choosing between products'). It routes away from compare/decide siblings without naming them explicitly, so guidance is strong but not fully explicit about the alternatives.

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