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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the bar is lower, and the description goes beyond them by specifying what comes back: all-in price incl. VAT and disposal fee, orderability, and availability speed. 'No side effects' merely restates readOnlyHint, but the return-value context is genuinely additive, especially since no output schema exists.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and filters, then the return information. Only 'No side effects' is wasted, as it duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return burden and does so by naming price composition, availability and orderability. For a 4-param, all-optional read-only search, this covers what an agent needs; pagination/result-limit behavior is the only notable omission.

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 coverage is 50%, with brand undocumented and size/orderableOnly described in the schema. The description restates size, season and brand filtering and repeats the size example, but adds nothing about brand values or the orderableOnly default, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names the resource (tyres for sale) and the three filter dimensions, which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like get_order_status or place_order. It is a noun phrase rather than an explicit search verb, but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the browsing step before place_order or get_quote, but the description never states when to use it versus those siblings or any prerequisites. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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