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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description still adds useful behavior beyond the annotations: the empty-query-lists-all semantics and the fact that results are check_ids intended for two named follow-up tools. It omits pagination/truncation behavior for the limit 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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler. The core purpose and market scope are front-loaded, and the follow-up-tool routing is stated in the same breath.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it says what is searched, what is returned (check_ids), and which tools consume that output. No nested objects or required params complicate the contract.

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 the schema documents all three parameters and baseline is 3. The description adds genuine semantics beyond the schema for the query parameter ('an empty query lists all checks') and confirms the market codes, nudging this 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?

Specific verb ('Find') plus resource ('food, cosmetics and FMCG compliance checks') with explicit scope (keyword and market). It clearly distinguishes itself from describe_check and run_check by framing itself as the lookup step that produces check_ids for those tools.

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?

It states the entry condition (search by keyword and market) and routes the agent downstream by naming describe_check and run_check as consumers of the returned check_ids, plus notes that an empty query lists all checks. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling as the alternative for a given scenario, so no full 5.

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