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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the tool is a legacy alias and scopes the search to purchasable products and participating merchants. However, it does not mention return format, pagination, or any limitations beyond being legacy, leaving some behavior undocumented.

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 short sentences with no filler. The legacy-alias warning is front-loaded, and the remaining sentences provide only actionable scope and usage direction.

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, the description covers purpose and routing but leaves parameter semantics and the return shape undocumented. An agent can call it with just `query`, but the optional `first` parameter and expected result format are not explained, so the description is not fully standalone.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not explain `query` or `first`. The word 'search' weakly implies that `query` is the search term, but `first` is entirely unexplained and no format, constraints, or semantics are added beyond the schema itself.

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 clearly states that the tool searches purchasable products across participating merchants and identifies itself as a legacy alias for search_products. This both defines the core action and differentiates it from the sibling tool list.

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?

It explicitly says to prefer search_products for new shopping requests, naming the alternative and the condition under which it should be selected. The 'legacy alias' framing further signals that this tool exists mainly for backward compatibility.

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