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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context the annotations lack: what each match actually returns (slug, lowest listed US total and supplier, page). It does not mention ordering, empty-result handling, or rate limits.

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 tightly written sentences with zero filler. The core purpose and accepted input space are front-loaded, and the return-shape detail follows without padding.

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 two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the input space and tells the agent what it gets back, which compensates for the absent output schema. Missing only guidance on when to prefer this over the sibling supplier/cost tools.

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%, so both limit (default 10, max 25) and query (maxLength 120) are already fully documented in the schema. The description's examples of query values ('hoodie', '11oz mug', 'Bella+Canvas 3001') merely restate the schema's own example. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 - 'Search the catalog of print-on-demand products' - with a concrete enumeration of product categories and the blank (Bella+Canvas 3001) it accepts. An agent can tell it is a search tool distinct from compare_suppliers and get_product_costs, though the description never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly.

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 says what the tool does but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing advice toward compare_suppliers or get_product_costs. With three siblings in a tight domain, failing to state when this search tool is the right entry point is a real gap.

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