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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and locality are covered. The description adds nothing about pagination via cursor, the 100-result cap, or how include_inactive affects results, which are the behaviors an agent would actually need disclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the resource and then illustrates it with two recognizable queries; nothing is wasted. It is short to the point of leaving out operational detail.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape need not be explained, and annotations cover the read-only profile. For a 7-parameter search tool, only pagination/limit behavior is left unexplained, which is a modest gap rather than a blocking one.

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 coverage is 71%, so most parameters are already documented, and the description echoes npc, item, direction and currency without adding syntax or format detail. The example 'Gold Coin' gives a small hint about currency values, but limit, cursor and include_inactive remain undescribed in both places.

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 (NPC trade offers with prices) and the filterable dimensions, which is more precise than the sibling tibia_find_* lookups. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from close neighbors like tibia_where_to_sell or tibia_how_to_obtain.

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 two quoted examples ('everything Rashid buys', 'what costs Gold Tokens') give concrete selection contexts that map cleanly to the npc/direction and currency parameters. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative, which keeps it below a 5.

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