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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, and idempotent hints, but the description adds significant behavioral detail: default compact card shape, optional detailed payload contents, and a response-size cap that applies to both modes. It also distinguishes the compact vs. detail behavior precisely. 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then organizes behavior by default and detail modes. Every clause adds information—return fields, mode conditions, and the response cap—without filler. Despite its density, the structure makes it easy to scan.

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 six-parameter search tool, the description covers all invocation modes, return shapes, and important constraints like the server response-size limit. With annotations and an output schema also available, nothing essential is missing for an agent to correctly call the tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds interaction semantics beyond the schema by clarifying that `detail` is only meaningful with `handle`, that default false returns the compact card shape, and by enumerating exactly which fields each mode returns. This goes beyond repeating schema descriptions.

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 description states a clear verb and resource: search and browse Bolot Studio custom metal photo prints, and it details both the default compact card and the optional enriched detail response. This makes the tool's role unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling search_products_task, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 practical usage guidance for parameter combinations: pass `handle` for a single product, add `detail: true` for the enriched record, and default to compact cards for all searches. It clearly explains the conditions under which `detail` matters. It does not say when to prefer alternatives like compare_products or search_products_task, so there are no exclusions.

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