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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that results are location-limited to the Austin yard and that $999 Budget Collection slabs are included by default. It says nothing about pagination behavior beyond the schema's limit cap, result ordering, or auth needs.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the resource, the material scope, the location constraint, and the budget inclusion with no filler. 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 five-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits return shape, default sort order, and how limit interacts with total results. The material and location coverage is adequate, but the missing operational details leave gaps.

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 80%, so the schema already documents color, query, material, and budget_only meaningfully. The description echoes material types and the budget collection, adding only marginal value over the schema's own descriptions and not clarifying limit or default behavior.

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 (granite, quartz, quartzite, marble and other slabs) with scoping detail about the Austin yard. It implies a multi-result listing versus the singular get_stone sibling, but never names or contrasts with siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_stone for a single slab or request_quote for pricing. The 'currently on the Austin yard' phrase implies live inventory scope but does not tell the agent when this tool is the right pick.

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