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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: response structure (results vs need_more_info), fields in results, null image_url possibility, and the rule to not silently pick one. All important behavioral traits are covered.

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 longer than ideal but every sentence serves a purpose. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and progressively adds detail. A minor trim would not harm, but it remains efficient for its complexity.

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?

Without an output schema, the description clearly explains the return format (results with page_url, seller, price_usdc, image_url, mcp_ref) and the need_more_info response. All scenarios (match, no match, multiple matches) are addressed. No gaps.

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 100% with basic descriptions. The tool description adds value by giving concrete query examples and explaining the search scope beyond the schema. The limit parameter gains no additional context, but queries are well-illustrated.

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 VIA network for products and sellers, combining product catalogue and seller profile matching. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_sellers or get_product by blending both sources.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use (defined intent returns results, loose/no match returns need_more_info), how to present results (side-by-side with prices), and how to handle failures (ask one clarifying question, retry with broader term, never say nothing is available).

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