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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state that results are 'observed' facts and enumerates fact types, which conveys the read-only, evidence-oriented nature of the tool. However, it does not disclose result shape, pagination, or any operational constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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 sentence with no filler. The key verb, resource, and returned fact types are front-loaded, making it easy to scan. It earns its place despite being short.

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 no annotations, no output schema, four parameters, and a closely related sibling tool, the description is too sparse to fully contextualize correct usage. It leaves q semantics, filtering behavior, result format, and sibling differentiation unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining what q, limit, category, and locality mean. It does not. Parameter names and basic types give some hints, but q's search semantics and category/locality filter behavior are left ambiguous.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and identifies the resource ('entities') plus the returned fact types: product, service, price, availability, and ordering-route facts. This clarifies that the tool surfaces offering-related observations, not just entity records. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the 'search_entities' sibling, so it falls just short of full clarity.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_entities, get_entity, or get_evidence. The description implies a search-focused use case but never states exclusions or conditions that should route an agent to a sibling tool.

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