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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and network scope are covered. The description adds only that results are 'listing summaries and total matches,' which is partly redundant with the output schema. No mention of pagination behavior (the `after` cursor) or rate limits, so it adds modest value beyond structured fields.

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 waste, with the core search capability front-loaded and the routing note trailing. Every clause earns its place.

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 filtered search with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description supplies the capability statement and disambiguation needed to select and call it. Nothing critical is missing.

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 every one of the 14 parameters is already documented in the schema. The description restates the filter families at a high level but adds no format or syntax detail (e.g., comma-separated composite size ids) beyond what the schema provides. 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Search Depop resale listings') and enumerates the filter dimensions available (price, condition, color, category, size, gender, brand, sale status, sort). An agent can immediately tell this apart from depop_item, depop_shop, or depop_search_sellers.

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?

Explicitly names three sibling alternatives and the condition that selects each: depop_item for a single listing, depop_shop for a seller's active items, depop_search_sellers for seller results. This is exactly the when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance the dimension asks for.

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