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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return context: SKUs, published prices (or 'pricing on request'), stock, and product links. No contradiction with annotations.

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 tightly written sentences: first front-loads purpose and searchable dimensions, second summarizes the return payload. No filler or redundancy.

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 an output schema present and 100% schema description coverage, the description supplies enough detail to call the tool correctly, including what query values are accepted and what the response contains. The only notable gap is the absence of explicit sibling routing guidance.

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 both parameters are documented in the schema. The description enriches the query parameter by listing additional accepted search inputs (competitor part number, well count/type, catalog number) beyond the schema's examples. The limit parameter is only covered by the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage.

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 ('Search') and resource ('catalog of lab consumables'), enumerates searchable attributes (catalog number, competitor part number, name, well count/type), and summarizes return data (SKUs, prices, stock, links). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_product or check_price_and_stock, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives clear context on what can be searched but provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to alternatives. The agent must infer that this is the discovery step before using get_product or check_price_and_stock for specific lookups.

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