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 externally. The description adds useful behavioral context on what comes back (price, description, a page with a video, live demo), which matters because there is no output schema. It does not disclose result-count behavior, pagination, or what an empty/no-match search yields.

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, search capability front-loaded, examples embedded where they are most useful. The trailing return-value list ("a page with a video, and a live demo") is slightly loose phrasing but every clause carries information.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema, the description does the right thing by enumerating returned fields, and it covers the primary query parameter well. Gaps remain around the limit parameter (no explanation of why to cap at ≤12) and around budget filtering via max_price, which the description omits entirely.

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 67%, in the middle band: query and max_price are documented in the schema, while limit carries no description (only default 6, min 1, max 12). The description reinforces the query semantics with concrete example phrasings, which is genuine added meaning, but it never mentions limit or max_price, so an agent must infer that narrowing by budget is even possible.

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 and resource ("Search Celebriza animated invitation designs") plus the searchable facets (occasion, theme, age). Sibling names change_invitation, get_invitation and make_invitation are mutations/retrievals by id, so an agent can tell this is the discovery-by-query tool without opening a schema.

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 three quoted examples ("dinosaur birthday for a 6 year old", "boho wedding", "baby shower girl") implicitly teach how and when to phrase a natural-language query, which is real usage guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this over get_invitation (id lookup) or make_invitation, and gives no exclusions or fallback behavior for empty results.

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