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

The readOnlyHint annotation is confirmed and, more importantly, the description discloses a critical non-obvious behavior: results may begin with an 'Account notice:' paragraph that must be copied verbatim into the reply. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context beyond annotations that agents need.

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 longer than average, but every sentence earns its place: purpose, return value, usage, and a mandatory output contract. It is front-loaded with the core purpose before the contract details.

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 read-only search tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is searched, what is returned, when to use it, and the one special output condition. An agent has enough to invoke it 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 describes both parameters completely (query and topK with ranges/default). The description adds no extra meaning about how queries are interpreted or how topK affects results, so it does not need to compensate; baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description names a specific operation (TF-IDF search across the AMZScout knowledge base) and a concrete resource ('Amazon-seller tutorials, brand reference, glossary'), plus the return payload (title, source URL, text). Among siblings focused on product/niche analysis, this is clearly the knowledge-retrieval tool.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to ground answers in factual material.' It lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives, but the phrase gives enough context for an agent to prefer it for knowledge-base grounding over sibling search/analysis tools.

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