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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: what the results contain (advertised prices, counted paid-product links) and the freshness limitation (catalog publication dates, not live availability). That staleness caveat is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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?

Three sentences, each doing distinct work: what it returns, when to use it, when not to. The return/output characterization is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 no output schema, the description correctly takes on the burden of describing the return payload (prices, counted paid-product links) and its staleness limits. For a single-parameter read tool with annotations covering the safety profile, nothing needed to call it correctly 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% for the single 'query' parameter, so the schema carries the semantics and baseline 3 applies. The description implies keyword-style task search but adds no syntax, formatting, or matching-behavior detail beyond the schema.

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: 'Returns matching tools from the current TidyTools catalog', and immediately qualifies the scope with what it returns (advertised prices, counted paid-product links). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by excluding web-content fetching and live availability checks.

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 when-to-use condition ('when you know a web-data task but not which TidyTools tool fits') and explicit when-not conditions ('not for fetching web content or checking live product availability'), which map onto the sibling tools read_url and check_ai_crawler_access.

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