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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the compact return shape (id, entry price, cost-trap ids, pricing date) and the ranking rule (text relevance only, never commission). It omits pagination semantics for cursor/limit.

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 dense sentences, zero filler, with the core capability front-loaded and the return/ranking facts appended. Every clause adds information an agent could act on.

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 an 8-parameter, zero-coverage schema with no output schema, the description leaves most filter parameters undefined even though it partially compensates on return values. An agent cannot reliably construct filters like avoid_cost_traps or max_price_usd_month without guessing.

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 0% across 8 parameters, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only maps the query to 'by task or name' and lumps the rest under 'optional filters'. Parameters like avoid_cost_traps, has_cost_rules, free_plan, max_price_usd_month, limit and cursor are left entirely unexplained.

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?

Clear verb+resource: search products by task or name with optional filters. It is distinguishable from get_product and compare_products by being a search, but it never names its closest sibling (search_offers) to disambiguate product vs offer search.

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 it accepts filters but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives such as compare_products or search_offers. The agent must infer the boundary between product search and offer search on its own.

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