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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are live, requires Bearer token authentication, lists prerequisites, and enumerates relevant error envelopes such as plan_restriction and no_integrations_connected. It stops short of explicitly stating read-only semantics, but 'search' and 'returns listings' strongly imply no mutation.

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?

The description is well structured: a one-sentence purpose, a concise returns summary, prerequisites, and error envelopes. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary due to the technical reference link and repeated platform examples, but the organization helps an agent parse requirements quickly.

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 search tool with an output schema and richly described parameters, the description covers the necessary context: prerequisites, authentication, error behavior, and the downstream use of results. It does not mention rate limits or explicit read-only guarantees, but these are not blocking for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, including defaults, limits, supported values, and examples. The description adds no significant parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as how limit interacts with pagination or how platform values map to integrations.

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 for products on a connected affiliate platform' and clarifies it returns live catalog listings with product details. The description differentiates from nearby tools like list_store_products by emphasizing the live external platform catalog and integration prerequisite, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

Provides clear usage context: requires an active platform integration, advises verifying with auth.list_integrations, and notes results are ready for auth.create_product. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name a specific alternative, but the integration prerequisite and 'live affiliate platform' framing make the intended scenario clear.

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