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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: prices are re-checked daily and results carry the date of the last check, which tells the agent how fresh the data is — useful context it could not get from the annotations or schema.

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 sentences, no filler, front-loaded with the capability and then the return contents. Every clause earns its place by either scoping the search or describing the output.

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-value burden and does so well: title, current price with last-check date, store domain, store rating, product link. It omits result ordering and pagination behavior, which are minor gaps for a simple two-parameter search.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both query and limit are already documented in the schema, including the 1-20 range and default of 8. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (no syntax, ranking, or result-ordering semantics), so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (catalogue of DTC brand products) and adds scope detail — prices re-checked at the store daily — which tells the agent what data it is searching over. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_price_history or compare_alternatives, so it stops 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?

Usage is only implied: the query parameter example ('white sneakers') signals this is the entry point for product discovery, but the description never says when to use it versus compare_alternatives, get_price_history, or get_store_sales, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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