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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety and idempotency profile. The description adds that results are 'compact rows' and 'the alternatives the platform suggests,' which provides some output context, but it does not elaborate on rate limits, authentication needs, or any other behavioral traits beyond the 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output format without any superfluous information.

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 simple schema (2 parameters, high coverage) and the presence of annotations, the description is mostly complete. It could mention that the results are based on the platform's suggestion algorithm, but for a read-only retrieval tool, it covers the essential aspects.

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 both parameters ('slug' and 'limit') are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific details; baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('sale listings similar to a given one'), and it clarifies the similarity criteria (same market segment, price bracket and specs). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_campers or get_camper_details, which serve different purposes.

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 usage when one has a listing and wants alternatives, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus similar siblings such as search_campers. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer.

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