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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add genuinely useful economics: prices are landed totals in USD including duty, international shipping, and customs clearance, plus dispatch in 48h, 7-12 day delivery, and 14-day returns. It does not disclose how results are ordered or ranked, whether an empty query returns everything (all 6 params are optional), or what a no-match response looks like.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler or repetition. Some of the mercantile detail (48h dispatch, 7-12 days, 14-day returns) is retail copy that an agent rarely needs to select or invoke the tool, but it is compactly delivered.

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 6-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers pricing and fulfillment semantics well but omits result shape, ranking, pagination, and zero-result behavior. An agent could call it correctly but cannot predict the response structure without trying.

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?

At 50% schema coverage over 6 parameters, the description compensates partially by defining what 'landed total' means, which directly clarifies max_price/min_price semantics beyond the schema's terse 'max landed total in USD'. It says nothing about q match behavior, limit/paging, in_stock defaulting, or ships_to constraints beyond what the schema already labels.

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 clear verb+resource with domain scope: 'Find workshop tooling and appliance replacement parts.' An agent knows exactly what kind of inventory is searchable, but the description never distinguishes this from siblings like recommend_for_answer, get_product, or check_stock, so the boundary is only implied by the name itself.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all — nothing says whether to reach for this versus get_product (known item), check_stock (availability), or recommend_for_answer (guided discovery). The space is spent on shipping and returns copy instead of routing information, leaving alternative selection entirely to inference.

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