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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that — no pagination behavior, no rate limits, no note on result scope despite 20 filter parameters.

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 tight sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. Efficient, though brevity here partly reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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 20-parameter, zero-coverage search tool this is too thin — no guidance on default sort, pagination, or how filters combine. The output schema covers return values, but the input-side gaps remain 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% for 20 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It names only about eight filter concepts (category, designer, price, sale, period, location, seller, sort) and gives no format or meaning for them, leaving over half the parameters (q, page, per_page, color, gender, origin, this_week, returnable, top_seller, measurements, recognized_seller, price_min/max) undocumented anywhere.

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 ('Search') and resource ('1stDibs handbag and purse listings'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling product/categories/designers tools. However it never names those siblings or contrasts the retrieval modes, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 only describes what the tool does, with no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives like firstdibs_product for a known item. An agent must infer usage entirely.

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