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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add one useful behavioral detail the annotations do not: results come from the 'readable' catalogue, implying permission-scoped visibility, and it links to open recommendations. It says nothing about result volume, ranking or pagination beyond what the schema's limit field implies.

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 sentences, no filler, with the primary action and scope front-loaded and the recommendation filter as a secondary clause. 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers scope and the filter surface, but it omits any note about how matches are ranked or what happens when no filters are supplied (all params optional), leaving a small gap for a zero-required-parameter search tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters in detail (including the 'every word must appear' semantics for query). The description only restates the filter axes and adds no syntax or matching nuance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (searches) plus a clearly scoped resource (the connected workspace's readable product catalogue) and the three filter axes (text, supplier, category). It distinguishes itself reasonably from generic listers like twelfth_list_products, though it never explicitly names or contrasts a sibling such as find_similar_products.

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 second sentence states a capability ('can limit results to products with open recommendations') rather than when to use this tool instead of alternatives. No when-not guidance and no alternative tool is named, so the agent must infer the selection context.

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