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

No annotations are provided, but the description discloses meaningful behavioral traits: 'Returns in-stock matches only' and 'ordered by relevance.' This goes beyond the schema and gives the agent important constraints. It could mention error handling or pagination, but for a search tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core function, the second specifies usage context. Both sentences earn their 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?

The tool is simple with only 2 parameters, and the schema covers them fully. The description provides scope, in-stock filter, relevance ordering, and usage guidance. It omits exact return format or error behavior, but given the simplicity and lack of output schema, this is still a complete definition.

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%, with both 'query' and 'limit' having detailed descriptions. The description itself adds no extra parameter-level details, so the baseline of 3 applies; the schema fully handles parameter semantics.

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+resource pair: 'Full-text search across the M.K. Electronics catalog.' It clearly states what the tool does and implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_product (specific lookup) and list_categories (browsing).

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 says 'Use this when the user asks to find / compare / shop for something,' giving clear usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide explicit alternative tool references, stopping short of a 5.

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