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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them: results are approximate catalog matches, absence of a match is not global unavailability, and precise material/configuration/price/stock must be verified on the linked page — important interpretive context for an open-world lookup.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the caveats. Nothing is redundant, though the final sentence about confirming details on the linked page is slightly tangential to invoking the tool.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only lookup with rich annotations and no output schema, the description supplies what is missing: the nature of the matches and how to interpret a negative result. It stops short of describing what a match entry contains beyond implying a linked page.

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?

Only one parameter exists ('product') and the schema documents no constraints at all (0% coverage, no description). The description compensates by clarifying the parameter is a product name used for matching, which is the key semantic an agent needs; a higher score is capped by the absence of any guidance on name format or ambiguity handling.

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?

States a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('available catalog matches for a product name'), so an agent knows this is a catalog-match lookup rather than a pure inventory check. It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling search_products, which sounds like it could also return catalog matches.

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 (checking availability by name) and adds a useful interpretation caveat that a no-match result is not proof of universal unavailability. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus search_products or the other siblings, leaving the choice to inference.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds that only public data is exposed and internal analytics/customer records are out of scope, but says nothing about lookup failure behavior, fuzzy matching, or data freshness.

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?

Two short sentences with the primary capability front-loaded and the scope exclusion second. No padding, though the second sentence is a bare negation that could carry more routing value.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, the description does state the return content (brand profile plus available-product count), which partly offsets the missing output schema. However, the input's meaning is left entirely unexplained and no not-found/error behavior is described, leaving it only minimally complete.

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 carries the full burden for the single 'brand' parameter, and it provides nothing: no indication whether 'brand' is a name, slug, or ID, and no format or matching guidance. This is a clear gap the description should have compensated for.

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 names a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('public brand profile and its available-product count'), so an agent can distinguish it from product-search siblings like search_products. It stops short of naming or contrasting any sibling explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 clause 'No internal analytics or customer records' draws a boundary that implies when this tool is appropriate (public brand data lookups only), but it never states when to use it over search_products or check_availability, nor any prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than instructed.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context: 'first seen' is a discovery date rather than a release date, and results are a bounded sample rather than a complete market view. Those caveats materially affect interpretation of the output.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler; each one carries a distinct piece of information (scope, date semantics, result completeness). Nothing could be cut without losing meaning.

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?

For a read-only two-parameter read tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies the essential scope and data-interpretation caveats. The one gap is parameter meaning, but the small, mostly self-explanatory schema limits the impact.

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% and neither parameter is named or explained. 'Bounded sample' loosely gestures at the limit, and the category enum values are self-describing, but the description does not clarify what limit actually controls (count cap of 25) or how category filters results.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read in-stock listings') plus a precise scope ('first seen within seven days'). An agent can distinguish it from check_availability or search_products by the recency window, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the seven-day discovery window, and 'bounded sample, not the entire market' hints that a broader search (e.g. search_products) is needed for full coverage. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative is given.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that with the warning that prices may reflect different configurations and need verification on the product page. It still says nothing about result ordering, pagination, or what an empty result means.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the reliability caveat follows immediately. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description would ideally say something about the shape or reliability of returned listings, and it does partially via the price-configuration warning. However, four undocumented parameters and no statement about result volume or ordering leave gaps for an agent that must decide how to constrain a search.

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% across four parameters, so the description carries the burden and adds essentially nothing: brand, query, category, and limit are never explained, nor is the max of 25 on limit or the meaning of the category enum values. The only faint signal is that searching is textual, which the tool name already conveys.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search ... public EDC catalog listings") and narrows scope with "currently available", which distinguishes it from a general catalog dump. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_latest_drops or check_availability, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied by "search" and the caveat "verify the product page before comparing or purchasing" hints that results are not authoritative for purchase decisions. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling tool is named as the alternative for browsing new drops or checking stock.

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