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 genuinely non-obvious behavior — that query is full-text relevance search and that a nonsensical query is not guaranteed to return an empty result. That edge-case disclosure is real value beyond the structured fields, though response shape/pagination is left implied.

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?

Three sentences, each load-bearing: what it searches, how its output connects to the sibling, and how the query behaves. Front-loaded with the core action and free of filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be described, and annotations cover safety. The description still supplies the inter-tool slug contract and query-behavior caveat, leaving nothing an agent needs to call it correctly unstated.

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 meaning beyond the schema by characterizing query as full-text relevance search and clarifying that the returned slugs are the values reverb_price_guide accepts. This is more than restating the field name, warranting a step above baseline.

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 (Searches), a specific resource (Reverb's Price Guide), and the input type (free-text brand/model query). It also names the sibling it feeds into (reverb_price_guide) and explains the slug relationship, so an agent can distinguish it from reverb_price_guide 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?

The description establishes a clear chained workflow: use this tool to resolve a brand/model into a slug, then pass that slug to reverb_price_guide. It gives strong context for when this tool is the entry point, though it stops short of an explicit 'when not to use' or naming a competing search alternative.

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