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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior the annotations don't: result ordering (DP picks first, then alphabetical) and that X is excluded from 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?

A single dense sentence with the use case front-loaded, then the return behavior, then the fallback. No filler or repetition of schema/annotation data.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description conveys what comes back (peer tools, ordering, exclusion) and where to go when the lookup doesn't apply. Limit defaults are covered by the schema, so nothing an agent needs is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by constraining slug to a directory slug (not any product name) and noting X is excluded from results, which prevents a common misuse.

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 and resource: returns other tools in the same directory category, with ordering (DP picks first, then A-Z) and the exclusion of the input tool. This clearly distinguishes it from dp_find_alternatives mentioned in the same sentence.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Use after dp_get_tool for "what else is like X?"') and names the alternative with its condition: for products the directory doesn't list, use dp_find_alternatives. Nothing is left to inference.

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