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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint (true) and destructiveHint (false), so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the key behavioral trait that it never creates an order, which reinforces the read-only nature. It also mentions returning product handles for use with get_price/validate_order, which adds operational context. Overall, it supplements the annotations well without contradiction.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it states the tool's function, the catalog scope, the output, and the important constraint (never creates an order) all in three sentences with no redundancy. Every sentence adds essential information for the agent.

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?

The description is complete for a search tool given the rich annotations and output schema. It covers the scope, output, and relation to other tools. However, it doesn't mention potential filters (like kind or country) in the description, though these are in the schema, so an agent might not know that searching by country or product type is possible. But since the schema documents those, the description doesn't need to repeat them. A slight gap is absence of mention about result limits or pagination, but that's not critical.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds semantic context by mentioning the types of items searched (gift cards, eSIM plans, mobile top-ups) and the output value (product handles), which helps agents understand the purpose of the 'query' parameter beyond the schema's simple description. However, it doesn't add detailed format or syntax 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?

The description clearly states the search tool's purpose: searching the AgentRoam travel-crypto catalog with specific categories (gift cards, eSIM plans, mobile top-ups) and lists the output (product handles) and relationship to other tools (get_price/validate_order). It distinguishes itself as a search operation and clarifies it never creates an order.

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 explicitly mentions the alternatives get_price/validate_order and states what this tool returns (product handles) for those tools, providing clear context for when to use it. It also implicitly indicates it is for searching before purchasing, but does not explicitly state when not to use sibling tools like list_products or list_brands which might have overlapping functions.

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