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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds substantial behavioral context: it explains that results are grounded in Shopify collections, surfaces same-range/same-purpose alternatives, flags them with `sameRange:true`, and returns a `collection` field. It also warns that from-prices are indicative. This goes well beyond the annotations, enhancing transparency.

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 sentences, but they are information-dense and every clause serves a purpose: defining the search scope, explaining the sameRange/collection behavior, and giving follow-up instructions. It is front-loaded with the main action. Slightly long but justified by the need to convey a multi-faceted search behavior.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by clearly stating what is returned (matching products, same-range alternatives, `sameRange` flag, `collection`) and how to interpret results (from-price indicative). It also provides the next steps (use vivid_product then vivid_price) and the expected customer-facing action. This is complete for a search tool with a single parameter.

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% for the single `query` parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing concrete examples ('corflute', 'pull up banner', 'expo', 'shopfront') and clarifying that the query can be a product name, category, or use-case, which is not fully captured in the schema's brief description.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search the Vivid Ads catalogue by product name, category, or intended use'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by noting that it returns same-range alternatives and directs users to vivid_product and vivid_price for exact configuration, which is unique to this search tool.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool (initial search) and when to use alternatives: 'Treat a from-price as INDICATIVE only — use vivid_product for options then vivid_price for the exact configuration.' It also gives a concrete customer-handling instruction ('ALWAYS mention these to the customer'), making the usage context unmistakable.

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