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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, not destructive). The description adds substantive behavior the annotations cannot: matching is word-order, accent and plural tolerant; no broader page is ever substituted; the tool reports when no matching page exists; and exactMatch is true for every result.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose followed by the exclusion, matching rules and no-match behavior. Dense but each sentence carries information; nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 single-parameter lookup with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: scope, exclusion, matching semantics and edge-case behavior (no match, no substitution). Nothing material is left to inference.

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% and the topic parameter is documented, so baseline is 3. The description adds real interpretive value beyond the schema by explaining how the topic string is matched (same words, variable order/accents/plurals) and giving examples like 'leather boots' or 'linen dresses'.

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 (finds) and resource (a Shop Nobi web page about a product topic) and immediately distinguishes itself from product search: 'It does not search products.' An agent can tell this apart from the sibling search_products without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a clear negative condition — it is not for a shopper wanting to find or compare products — which routes the agent toward search_products. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so the alternative is implied rather than spelled out.

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