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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and a closed-world non-destructive profile, so the safety bar is low. The description adds genuinely new behavior: results are capped at 5 guides and each carries a short answer plus a citable URL. It omits what happens on zero matches or whether matching is keyword vs semantic, which keeps it from a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the return contract closes it out. The long topic enumeration is dense but each item functions as a query-domain hint rather than filler, so it earns its space, though trimming a few examples would sharpen it further.

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 search tool this is close to complete: the description covers what is searched, the shape of the return (short answer + URL), and the result cap, which compensates for the absent output schema. Only no-result behavior and the matching strategy remain unstated, both minor for this tool class.

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 topic parameter already carries an example, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond it by listing the actual topic domains (Best Offer, sell-through rate, eBay sign-in wall, category guides like Pokemon, Rolex, sneakers), which effectively tells the agent what vocabulary will match — real added value over 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 and resource ("Search SoldComps's sold comps guides") and enumerates the covered subject matter, so an agent knows exactly what corpus is being queried. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling what_are_sold_comps, even though the enumerated topics include "what sold comps are" — an overlap the description leaves unresolved.

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: this is the tool to reach for when an agent needs conceptual or explanatory guidance rather than raw comp data (get_sold_comps). But no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement is given, and the closest sibling, what_are_sold_comps, is never mentioned as an alternative or fallback, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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