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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by disclosing that results are 'compact rows' rather than full records, which shapes downstream handling; it omits pagination/result-size 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 tight sentences with no filler; the core action and filters come first, followed by the output-shape caveat and the routing hint. Every clause earns its 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?

For a 2-param, no-output-schema listing tool, the definition covers purpose, filter semantics, and result granularity. The only material gap is the absence of pagination or result-count behavior, which matters for a catalogue listing.

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 only 50%: the keyword parameter is documented in the schema, but the category enum has no per-value description there. The description supplies those meanings (power = transformers & substations, distribution = switchgear, storage = battery storage, emobility = EV charging), adding real value beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('List products in the catalogue') plus the exact filter dimensions (category, keyword). It also differentiates itself from the sibling get_product by declaring it returns 'compact rows' and directing full-spec lookups elsewhere, so an agent can choose between the two without opening a schema.

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 frames both filters as optional and names the alternative path ('call get_product for full specifications'), which is clear routing guidance. It stops short of stating when-not to use it (e.g. large result sets, pagination limits, or other listing/browsing siblings).

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