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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state that the operation is read-only, whether matching is case-insensitive, substring or exact, whether results are paginated or capped, or what is returned on no matches. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place and the core behavior is stated immediately.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what is searched and against which field. It omits return-shape and matching-behavior details that would be needed to call it confidently, but those are modest gaps for a tool this simple.

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 0% and the single 'query' parameter has no schema description, but the description partially compensates by stating the keyword is matched against the product name. It does not clarify matching semantics (partial vs exact), case sensitivity, or length constraints.

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?

States a specific verb (Busca) and resource (produtos no catálogo) plus the matching rule (palavra-chave no nome). This implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling produtos_por_categoria, but the description never names or contrasts with that sibling.

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 phrase 'por palavra-chave no nome' implies the usage context (free-text lookup rather than category browsing), which is enough to pick between this and produtos_por_categoria. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of the alternative tool, and no exclusions.

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