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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds return-field details but no extra behavioral constraints (e.g., rate limits, pagination behavior beyond page param). No contradiction with annotations; it's consistent but not enriched.

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?

One purpose sentence plus a practical example. No filler, the key info is front-loaded. The example doubles as a usage guide without extra text.

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?

The tool is simple, schema covers all params, annotations cover behavior, and the description lists return fields. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly. The example disambiguates parameter formatting.

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 parameters are already documented. The description's example maps to parameters (retailer, search, page, _apiKey) but doesn't add new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate; the example is mildly helpful.

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 states a clear verb ('Search') + resource ('a retailer') + purpose ('by keyword') and lists the return fields. It distinguishes from siblings like unwrangle_product and unwrangle_reviews by focusing on search across retailers. The example further clarifies usage.

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 gives a concrete example and states the search context, but it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use this tool or point to alternatives like unwrangle_reviews. It implies usage for searching products but leaves exclusions implicit.

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