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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the task/polling model and long-running nature, which is useful, but it omits details about task lifecycle, failure modes, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core behavior and immediately tells the agent how to retrieve the result, making it appropriately sized and easy to parse.

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?

The async task/polling mechanic is mentioned, and the schema fully documents parameters, so the tool is callable. However, without an output schema or an explicit alternative/selection policy, the description leaves some context about result shape and when to choose the synchronous counterpart to inference.

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%, and each parameter already carries rich descriptions with examples. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level guidance, so the baseline score of 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?

The description states a clear action ('product search') with a specific resource ('products') and a distinguishing retrieval mode ('task-based... task polling'). It separates the tool from the synchronous-looking sibling search_products, although it does not explicitly name that tool.

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 actionable context: this is intended for long-running MCP clients and results are retrieved by polling. It clearly implies an asynchronous pattern, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the sibling search_products tool.

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