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

Beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations, the description discloses a crucial behavioral contract: results may begin with an 'Account notice' paragraph, and the agent must copy it verbatim. It also documents the return structure (title, source URL, text), which is especially valuable because no output schema is provided.

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 concise and front-loaded: it states the core purpose and return format first, then gives a clearly marked mandatory output contract. Every sentence earns its place, and the contract formatting is unambiguous.

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?

Without an output schema, the description fully covers what the agent receives and how it must behave with certain results. Combined with the complete parameter schema, there are no significant gaps an agent would need filled to invoke this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds the 'top-K' framing and the TF-IDF search context, which slightly enriches understanding of the query and topK behavior, but it does not substantially go beyond the structured parameter descriptions.

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 and resource: 'TF-IDF search across the AMZScout knowledge base'. It also explains the output artifact (top-K relevant chunks with title, source URL, and text), and the phrase 'ground answers in factual material' clearly distinguishes it from the product/niche analysis siblings.

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?

The description explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool: 'Use this to ground answers in factual material.' It does not enumerate exclusions or compare directly to sibling tools, but the knowledge-base purpose is distinct enough from the analysis tools to provide clear usage context.

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