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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining the return document shape (id, title, URL) and that each id resolves to its full record. It also states the scope boundary of record retrieval versus analytics, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 three focused sentences with no redundant filler. The first sentence front-loads the action, the second describes the output shape, and the third gives an exclusion that helps with tool selection. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

There is one required parameter with full schema coverage, an output schema exists, and the description explains what the returned documents contain and how ids resolve. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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?

The input schema fully documents the query parameter, including that it is free text matched against product names/SKUs and order numbers and truncated to 200 characters. The description only generally says 'matching a query,' adding little beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action and resource: searching this MerchantFlow store for products and orders. It also clarifies the output as retrieval documents with id, title, and URL, and explicitly excludes analytics categories. It does not directly distinguish itself from the close sibling search_orders, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 provides clear usage context: use this when you need record retrieval for products and orders rather than profit, ad, cohort, or valuation analytics. It names what the endpoint is not for, though it does not explicitly compare with search_orders or other retrieval siblings. This is enough guidance for most agents.

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