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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds the genuinely non-obvious fact that the call is FREE, but says nothing about result limits, pagination, or whether the catalog is exhaustive.

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?

Two tight sentences with the cost signal front-loaded and the return shape and filter options packed in without waste. Nothing extraneous.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully describes the return payload (ids, prices, parameters, selling tool), which an agent needs for chaining into call_product. Remaining gaps are pagination and result-count limits for a search over an open-world catalog.

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 only 33% (only query is described), so the description must compensate, and it does: it names all three filter dimensions and gives keyword examples. The toolset parameter's meaning is only partially clarified (the enum values travel/records/tools live in the schema, not the prose).

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+resource (list/search products) and enumerates the returned fields (ids, prices, parameters, which tool sells them), which is unusually informative. It does not explicitly name a sibling like call_product as the alternative, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Filter modes (keyword, toolset, max price) imply how to narrow results, and 'FREE' hints this is a safe discovery call before purchase. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance such as 'use this before call_product to find the right product id', so usage 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.