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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the return shape (normalized summaries plus a total count), but it says nothing about pagination, even though the schema exposes an 'after' cursor parameter.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is not padded, though it spends its only clause on return values rather than the parameters this tool actually needs explained.

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 14-parameter search with 0% schema coverage and no parameter documentation anywhere, the description is materially incomplete. The output schema relieves it of explaining return values, and annotations cover read-only safety, but the gap on filtering, sorting, and cursor pagination is significant.

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 0% across 14 parameters, so the description must carry the load and does not. It names output fields (title, price, brand, condition, photos, sizes) that loosely hint at filterable facets, but sort, after, query syntax, brand_ids, category/subcategory, and price_min/price_max are all unexplained, leaving the agent to guess at behavior.

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 verb (search) and resource (Depop resale-fashion listings) and even characterizes the payload ('normalized listing summaries... plus total matching count'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like depop_search_facets or depop_search_sellers, so it falls short of a 5, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 and no mention of alternatives such as depop_search_facets or depop_search_sellers, which is important given the dense cluster of depop_* tools. The agent must infer that this is the primary listing search from the name alone.

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