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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld). The description adds genuine non-obvious context beyond them: results are confirmed against each listing's own developer disclosure, and the listing is an approximation rather than a guaranteed-complete catalog. That completeness caveat is exactly the kind of behavioral trait annotations cannot convey.

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 dense sentences with zero waste; the scope constraint leads and the completeness caveat follows. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only lookup with no output schema and fully documented params, the description gives an agent everything needed to call it correctly and to interpret the results' completeness. It does not describe the response shape, but with no output schema that is a minor omission.

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%, and both parameters (publisher, max_checked) are fully documented in the schema with defaults and bounds. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: extensions on the Chrome Web Store attributed to a single publisher, confirmed against each listing's developer disclosure. It clearly distinguishes itself from a generic store search by the publisher-attribution angle, though it never names the sibling tools (chrome_web_store_search, chrome_web_store_extension) it should be contrasted with.

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 when you want a developer's extensions), and the description helpfully explains why results are bounded, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to the sibling chrome_web_store_search or chrome_web_store_extension tools.

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