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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds useful scope ('across every live AgentDNA catalog') and return contents ('company, price and availability'), which is valuable extra context. It does not describe ranking or pagination behavior, but that is minor for a read-only search.

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 sentence with zero filler; the scope and return values are front-loaded. Every clause 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?

For a two-parameter search tool with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description is sufficient: it states scope, backend coverage, and what matches include. No output schema exists, so mentioning return fields is valuable; nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both query and limit. The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond the schema's own descriptions (e.g., examples or defaults), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb 'Searches' and resource 'product names and descriptions across every live AgentDNA catalog' are specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from catalog-metadata tools by focusing on product search across all catalogs, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions are given; the agent must infer from the name and scope that this is the product search tool. It does not mention when to use agentdna_get_catalog or agentdna_list_companies instead.

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