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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds two meaningful behavioral details beyond that: automatic filtering of low-quality listings (blocked categories, minimum price) and the conversion of product URLs to CashbackPro affiliate links. This is valuable context without contradicting annotations.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose. The first sentence describes the search and output fields; the second covers filtering and affiliate links. Every clause earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 does an excellent job: it specifies the return card contents, the filtering behavior, and the affiliate link transformation. It lacks explicit edge-case handling (e.g., no results, pagination) but those are minor given the limit parameter and openWorldHint annotation.

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 parameter (query, limit, max_price_usd) is already documented. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it neither enhances nor degrades the baseline. The mention of 'minimum price' in filtering is a behavior, not a parameter explanation.

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 searches the AliExpress catalogue and returns product cards with specific fields (price, rating, sales volume, commission rate). This distinct verb+resource combination separates it from sibling tools like get_cashback_link or get_promo_codes.

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 implies this is the entry point for product discovery—the output fields are framed as needed to judge costs—but it never explicitly says when to use this instead of get_product_details or calculate_cashback. No alternatives are mentioned, so guidance is merely contextual.

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