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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description's 'Search' wording aligns with those. The description adds useful non-obvious behavioral context about MCP Apps-enabled hosts rendering results as an interactive card grid. This goes beyond what the annotations or schema convey.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the tool's purpose and searchable dimensions; the second adds a relevant rendering behavior. Every sentence 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?

Given the full parameter schema, output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is nearly complete for a search tool. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit guidance on how this tool relates to the sibling search_engagement_rings and search_diamonds 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 the schema already documents all seven parameters. The description mentions category, type, diamond shape, and price, which maps to several parameters, but it adds no format, constraint, or usage detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('Ada Diamonds' fine jewelry'), and enumerates the product categories and filter dimensions. It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like search_engagement_rings or search_diamonds, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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 when to use this tool — when searching fine jewelry by category, type, shape, or price — but it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer a sibling tool like search_engagement_rings or search_diamonds. The usage context is clear but exclusions and alternatives are left to inference.

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