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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, whether it involves side effects, or any rate limits, pagination, or return format. As a search tool, it is presumably safe, but the description leaves these assumptions implicit rather than explicit.

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 concise—two sentences—with the core functionality stated first and additional details (matching fields, all-words requirement) following succinctly. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., product results, count, order). Since this is a search tool, an agent needs to know the response shape to use it effectively. The description is adequate for triggering a search but incomplete for understanding the full interaction.

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?

The schema covers both parameters (query and lang) with descriptions, but the description adds meaningful context: it specifies what fields are searched (product names, descriptions, and EAN barcodes) and that multiple words must all match. This goes beyond the schema's basic parameter definitions, enhancing an agent's understanding of query behavior.

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 clearly states the tool's function: it performs a fuzzy keyword search over the candle catalog, matching names, descriptions, and EAN barcodes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like browse_catalog or list_products, which imply browsing or listing rather than searching. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself, so it falls short of a 5.

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 description implies the tool is for keyword-based searching, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over browse_catalog or list_products. There is no guidance on exclusions or alternatives. The usage context is somewhat implied by the word 'search' but lacks direct comparison to siblings.

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