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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: it queries a LIVE catalog, accepts free-form input in three languages, and enumerates the returned fields (name, price in AED with VAT, size, stock, concerns, link) — which matters since there is no output schema. It does not disclose result-count limits or empty-result behavior, and `limit` is only explained in 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 with the scope front-loaded, followed by the usage trigger and the return contract. No filler, no repetition, and the most decision-relevant information (what catalog, when to use) comes first.

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 eight-parameter, zero-required search tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: the domain, the natural-language entry point, the supported languages, and the shape of the response. The remaining gaps (pagination semantics, filter combination logic) are secondary and largely inferable from 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 75%, so the schema already carries most parameter meaning, and the description's contribution is largely restatement: 'plain language in English, Russian or Arabic' mirrors the `locale` enum, and 'price in AED (VAT included)' mirrors `max_price_aed`. It adds only the vague phrase 'plus optional filters' without clarifying how `concern`, `category`, and `skin_type` combine (AND vs OR) or that `skin_type` and `in_stock_only` exist at all. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 live GENOSYS UAE catalog) and scopes the catalog contents with concrete examples (Korean professional skincare, haircare, devices, beauty boxes). The scope is unambiguous, though the description never distinguishes this tool from the sibling `search` or `list_categories`, so the 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?

Gives a clear triggering condition: use for any "what do you have for..." question, and notes that filters are optional. It stops short of naming alternatives (get_product for a known SKU, list_categories for browsing taxonomy) or stating when NOT to use it, so the routing decision against siblings 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.