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

With readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint already covered by annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral context: it explains the ranking factors, explicitly states that commission plays no part, lists the return fields, and notes the hasReviews=false flag. This is rich disclosure beyond structured data.

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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and structured logically: ranking explanation, trust note, then return details. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the ranking methodology sentence is dense and could be slightly trimmed.

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?

Given no output schema and rich annotations, the description adequately explains what the tool returns and how ranking works. It omits any routing guidance relative to sibling tools, which is a minor gap for an otherwise complete definition.

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 all five parameters are already documented with examples and defaults. The description adds only marginal semantic value, such as relating the query parameter to a 'need', but does not compensate for anything missing.

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?

The description clearly states the tool returns the best products for a need, ranked by a proprietary score. It distinguishes itself from a generic search by emphasizing ranking and specific return fields, but it never names or contrasts with siblings like search_products or compare_products.

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?

Examples such as 'top 5 smartphones' and 'best airfryer under 150 euro' imply the intended use case. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over search_products or compare_products, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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