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

Annotations already declare it as a read-only, idempotent, closed-world lookup, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value by enumerating the returned fields (product_id, price in DKK incl. VAT, availability, image, has-options), which matters because there is no output schema.

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, front-loaded with the action and the searchable fields, followed by the return shape. No filler; slightly long single sentence in the first half but every clause carries information.

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 simple 3-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies what's missing: what fields are matched and what comes back. Pagination/limit behaviour and the shop-scoping rule are left to the schema, which handles them adequately.

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% and documents shop, limit (default 20, max 50) and query constraints, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's example query strings add usable flavor for the query parameter but nothing beyond that—baseline 3.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (search products) and specifies the searchable fields (name, description, category) with concrete example queries. It doesn't contrast itself with siblings like get_product or get_menu, but the 'free-text search' framing is distinguishable on its own.

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?

Usage is implied by the query examples, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_product (known id), get_menu, or check_stock, nor any note that the shop parameter is required unless calling from a shop's own address. Schema covers the shop caveat, so the description doesn't contradict—it just doesn't route.

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