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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and open-world; the description adds that it 'Returns compact products with prices ex/inc VAT, stock and a link', setting payload expectations and confirming read-only search behavior. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them, though it doesn't cover result pagination metadata or external-data caveats.

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, front-loads the core purpose, and each sentence adds a distinct piece of information: what the tool searches and what it returns, then how to paginate/filter. No filler or repetition.

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 9-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the catalogue scope, the response shape (compact products, VAT prices, stock, link), and the key pagination/filter controls. It doesn't describe the surrounding result envelope or query-matching semantics, but the schema and read-only/open-world annotations cover the remaining structured context.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all nine parameters. The description adds value by grouping them into functional roles: 'page/per_page to paginate' and 'brand/min_price/max_price to narrow down,' which helps an agent assemble a query correctly.

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 opens with 'Full-text search of the Camden Tools catalogue', naming a specific verb, resource, and scope, and lists the catalogue categories. The 'full-text search' phrasing and the compact-result return set distinguish it from sibling listing/detail tools, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

It tells the agent how to use the tool ('Use page/per_page to paginate and brand/min_price/max_price to narrow down'), which implies it is the right choice when the shopper has a free-text query. It does not state exclusions or name alternatives such as list_products or get_product, so the when-to-use guidance is only implicit.

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