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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it states that matching handles singular, plural and partial words, and that fuzzy fallback returns close matches when a strict term match fails — which tells the agent to expect non-exact results.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that packs the scope, both query modes, and the fuzzy-matching behavior with zero filler. Nothing is repeated and nothing extraneous is present.

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 a read-only search tool with rich annotations this covers purpose, matching semantics and the empty-query mode well. The remaining gap is return-shape and result-ordering detail, which matters more here because no output schema exists to describe what comes back.

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?

With schema coverage at only 40%, the description should carry more weight, and it partially does by clarifying what the query matches against and that an empty query switches to type-based listing. However, it says nothing about the store selector, the limit/offset paging model, or the default result count, all of which are only thinly documented in 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 gives a specific verb (find) plus the exact resources it covers (products, collections, pages, articles) and names the two lookup modes: by name/handle or by type. This is clear enough to distinguish it from the sibling write/search tools, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with get_search_results or search_draft_files.

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 'by name or handle, or list them by type' phrasing implies the two usage modes, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no named alternative for related tasks like checking existing catalogue data. An agent can infer the path but must supply its own routing logic.

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