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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavior signal, that results are limited to the *approved* catalog, but says nothing about matching logic across multiple filters, pagination, or ordering.

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 naming verb, resource, scope and facets, with no filler whatsoever.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description is nearly sufficient. It leaves only minor gaps, notably what a result record contains and how multiple filters combine, and lacks an output schema to fill those in.

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 every parameter including limit, matching targets, and the °C unit is already documented. The description echoes the same facets without adding matching semantics (AND vs OR across query/category/temp_required), so it stays at the baseline.

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 (search) plus the exact resource (the approved InduSpec catalog of industrial materials) and the three facets searched, which makes it plainly distinct from get_product and request_quote. It stops short of explicitly naming the siblings, so it lands at 4 rather than 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 use case is implied clearly enough by a discovery-style search tool, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_product (e.g. 'use this first to find product ids, then call get_product for details') and no exclusions.

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