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

Beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, the description discloses a real output behavior: the cheapest product is marked, but only when all inputs share one currency. That conditional is genuinely useful context an agent could not get from the annotations. It still omits what happens on mixed currencies or output shape.

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, no filler, with the core scoping constraint and the cheapest-marking behavior front-loaded. Every clause 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?

For a read-only, no-output-schema tool whose annotations already cover the safety profile, the description covers the essentials plus the currency condition. The gap is the unexplained `sub_id` parameter, which is the main reason this is not a 5.

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 parameter burden. It explains that `refs` are product references limited to 2–5 (though the bounds already live in the schema) but says nothing about `sub_id` or its format, leaving one of two parameters entirely undocumented.

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+resource ('Side-by-side data for 2–5 products') and the identifier used ('by `ref`'), which is enough to distinguish it from search_products at a glance. It does not explicitly name the sibling it complements, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 comparison intent is implied by the name and description, but there is no explicit when-to-use trigger, no prerequisite (e.g. obtaining refs from search_products first), and no mention of when not to use it. Adequate but inferential.

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 and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. Beyond that, the description discloses the shape of what is returned (feed counts, last refresh, errors, which networks produce tracked links), which is valuable since there is no output schema.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the resource (loaded feeds) and parenthetically enumerates the key data points. No wasted words.

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 zero-parameter read-only status tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the agent will get back. It stops short of describing failure modes (e.g., what an error field implies) but is otherwise 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies.

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 and resource: it reports loaded feeds with counts, last-refresh times, errors, and tracked-link networks. That is clearly distinguishable from product/link siblings like get_buy_link and search_products, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use is given. Usage is only implied by the name and content (a diagnostic/health check for the DealFinder integration), so an agent must infer that this is for verifying feed and link-tracking state.

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 and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the parenthetical '(affiliate)', which hints at monetization context but says nothing about link lifetime, redirect behavior, required auth, or rate limits — little value beyond structured fields.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the resource and key are front-loaded. It is efficient, though there is so little content that efficiency verges on under-specification.

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 an openWorld affiliate-link tool with an undocumented second parameter and no output schema, the description leaves an agent guessing about ref provenance, sub_id purpose, and the link's form. Annotations cover read safety only, so the description should do substantially more.

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 must carry parameter meaning, but it only names `ref` and never explains what a ref is or where to obtain it. The second parameter `sub_id` is not mentioned at all, leaving an affiliate sub-tracking argument completely undocumented.

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 ('Return ... link for one product') and names the lookup key (`ref`), so an agent can tell it apart from search_products and compare_products. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus search_products, compare_products, or dealfinder_status, and no mention of prerequisites (e.g. needing a ref from a prior search). The implied workflow is left entirely 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 declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results include price/merchant/buy link, filters are non-converting for currency, and the returned `ref` is meant to be passed into other tools. Pagination/result-count behavior (limit max 20) is left to the schema.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose then return shape then filters then chaining. No filler; it could be marginally sharper by folding the filter list and ref note together, but nothing is wasted.

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 9-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return contents, and most filters, which is adequate. It stops short on sort/limit semantics and any note about result-set sizing or pagination, which an agent would otherwise have to dig out of the schema.

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 56%, and the description only names the filter families (price range, currency, network, merchant) without covering sort, limit, or the query semantics. The parenthetical '(no conversion)' for currency is a genuinely useful semantic addition the schema lacks, but the undocumented params (sort, limit) remain unaddressed.

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 the loaded affiliate product feeds by keywords') and summarizes what comes back (price, merchant, buy link). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like compare_products or get_buy_link, 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 ... by keywords', and 'Use the returned `ref` in other tools' gives useful downstream chaining guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs compare_products (which presumably also queries products) or a statement of when this is the wrong tool.

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