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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so safety needs no repetition. The description adds genuinely new behavior: results are capped at up to 10 per call and each hit contains id, name, category, image and product page link — return-shape information that matters because 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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded in sentence one. The chaining hint comes last where it belongs, after the agent knows what the tool returns.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the enumeration of returned fields plus the result cap is exactly the information an agent needs to decide whether one search suffices or multiple queries are required. A note on search matching breadth (keyword vs. fuzzy) or whether results are ranked would close the last gap, but nothing essential is missing.

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% with both parameters described (query examples, limit range and default), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates the 10-result cap and adds no query syntax, matching behavior, or tokenization guidance beyond the schema examples.

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) plus the resource (FickelUSA custom promotional products) and enumerates the domain (logo apparel, drinkware, bags, hats, pens). It also names the downstream siblings get_product and request_quote, so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening other schemas.

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?

Clear context for when to call it (product discovery in the catalog) and explicit next steps ('use the id with get_product or request_quote'). It does not state when NOT to use it or contrast it with a browsing/listing alternative, but with only two downstream siblings, the routing is unambiguous.

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