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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the 2-5 item bound already in the schema — nothing about what happens with unknown or mixed slug/display-name input. Adequate but not additive.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the capability front-loaded and the usage cue trailing. 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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, enumerating the returned dimensions effectively substitutes for a return spec. The only residual gap is error behavior when a name is not recognized, which is minor here.

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% and the single `tools` parameter is documented as "2-5 slugs or display names." The description repeats the 2-5 count and adds the useful constraint that products must be named, but supplies no extra format or normalization detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (side-by-side comparison of AI tools) and enumerates the comparison dimensions (pricing, rating, features, pros/cons), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It stops short of naming a sibling like search_ai_tools or get_ai_tool, so the boundary with those is inferable rather than explicit.

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?

"Use it when the user is choosing between named products" gives a clear selection condition that implicitly separates it from discovery tools like search_ai_tools. There is no explicit when-not clause or named alternative for the ambiguous case (one product, or products not yet identified).

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