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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds value by stating that only products with complete data are returned, results are sorted ascending by price, and disclaiming investment advice and purchase finalization. No contradiction with 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?

Description is reasonably concise, front-loaded with the primary purpose and filters, followed by important behavioral notes and disclaimers. Each sentence contributes value, though some repetition about non-investment advice could be streamlined.

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 the complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), the description covers key filtering capabilities and disclaimers. However, it omits details on pagination (limit parameter), optional nature of all params, and a more structured explanation of the return object beyond 'structured attributes + live price and availability.'

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 only 22%, so the description must compensate. It lists some filters (metal, form, mint, mass, price range) but misses explaining parameters like 'limit', 'waluta', 'dostepnosc', and 'próba' (purity). It does not add meaning beyond the schema for the 78% undocumented parameters.

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?

Description clearly states it is a search engine for investment metals catalog, specifies filterable attributes (metal, form, purity, mint, mass, price range), and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_product, check_availability by focusing on multi-product search with live pricing and availability.

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?

Description provides some usage context: results are sorted by price, only complete data, data is informational, and agent does not finalize purchases (KYC required). However, it does not explicitly tell when to use this tool vs. siblings like check_availability or get_live_price, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.

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