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 the useful fact that the query constraints are shared with the search sibling, but says nothing about response shape or bucket limits; with an output schema present this is acceptable but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core action and the `facet` role front-loaded before the routing note.

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 17-parameter tool the description gives the necessary conceptual context, the schema and output schema carry the detail, and the sibling relationship is stated. A note on pagination not affecting facet buckets would have made it fully complete, but the schema already documents that.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning by explaining that `facet` chooses which field to aggregate rather than just restating the enum. It also signals that filters behave as search constraints, which contextualizes the other 16 params.

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 (return facet-count data) and resource (Chrome Web Store dataset facets), and explains that `facet` selects the aggregation field. It explicitly names its sibling dataset tool, so an agent can distinguish it from datasets_chrome_extensions_search without opening either schema.

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?

Tells the agent to apply the same search constraints to datasets_chrome_extensions_search when it wants to inspect matching items, which routes between the aggregation view and the item view. It does not state explicit exclusions (e.g., that this is not for retrieving items directly), keeping it short of a 5.

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