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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by naming the returned fields (price, stock status, url, image), which matters because there is no output schema, though it omits any note about result limits or the default 20 / max 50 cap.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is searchable and the return shape, then the hand-off to get_product. No filler or restated name/title.

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 7-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the searchable surface and the return fields well enough to call it correctly. The remaining gap is pagination/limit behaviour and whether results are capped or ordered, which an agent would want to know.

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 71%, so the baseline is near 3. The description adds genuine meaning for the free-text parameter by naming what fields 'words' matches (name, sku, colour, description), but it says nothing about limit, store or in_stock_only, leaving three parameters to the schema alone.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('search the anne black catalogue') and enumerates the searchable dimensions (words, colour, category, max price). It also names the return payload and explicitly separates itself from the sibling get_product, which covers variants.

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?

Routes the agent to get_product for variant colours/sizes, which is a real alternative with an explicit condition, and ties category_id to list_categories. It does not state when not to use it (e.g. when a single known product is wanted), so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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