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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds 'available in the Camping Australia store' (scope limitation) and the 'what to buy/bring' use case, which are useful behavioral cues. However, it doesn't add further details like response format or filtering behavior.

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 resource. The second sentence is a direct usage trigger. No wasted words or repetition of schema details.

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 read-only search tool with three well-documented optional parameters and no output schema required, the description is sufficient. It tells the agent what the tool searches and when to use it. The annotations cover safety, and the schema covers parameters, so no critical information is missing.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptive text for each (limit, query, product_type). The description's list of product types ('gear, outdoor products, accessories') loosely maps to query/product_type but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides. 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('camping gear, outdoor products, and accessories available in the Camping Australia store'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_campervans and search_campsites by focusing on store products and gear.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when a user asks about gear, equipment, products, or what to buy/bring.' It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it misses the top bar but still gives clear context.

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