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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context the annotations don't: the return shape of prefixed ids ('product:<id>', 'blog:<slug>') that downstream tools consume. It stops short of noting rate limits or pagination.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the return-value convention. No filler; both sentences earn their 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?

With no output schema, the mention of return ids is a helpful partial substitute. But the query semantics go unexplained and the overlap with 'search_products' is unresolved, so the definition is only minimally sufficient for correct invocation.

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% for the single 'query' parameter, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains whether the query is natural-language, keyword-based, or how it interacts with the product/article scope, leaving the required parameter's semantics 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 ('Search') and resource ('GENOSYS products and skincare articles'), making the scope clear. However, it never distinguishes itself from the close sibling 'search_products', leaving the agent to guess which search to pick.

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?

It gives an implied workflow ('Returns ids to pass to fetch'), which is genuine usage context. But it offers no when-not guidance and never names or contrasts with 'search_products', so the alternative-selection decision is left to inference.

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