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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by naming the return shape (product handles as brandSlug + countryCode) and explicitly reassuring 'Creates no order', which is useful domain context for an agent deciding whether this is a safe exploratory call.

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?

Front-loaded with the search verb and catalog scope, followed by a compact return-value and side-effect sentence. Dense but every clause carries information; no filler.

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 full schema coverage, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description supplies the catalog scope, the return format, and the no-side-effect guarantee. It is complete enough to call correctly, with only the when-to-use routing left implicit.

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 100%, so all three parameters (kind, query, country) are already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description reinforces the query domain (brand, carrier, destination) but adds no syntax or filtering detail beyond the schema.

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 (the AgentRoam travel-crypto catalog) and enumerates the three product families it covers with concrete examples. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_products and list_brands, which enumerate rather than query.

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 downstream usage by saying the returned handles are 'used by the pricing and order tools', but it never states when to prefer this over list_products or list_brands, nor any precondition for a search. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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