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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuinely useful context: real-time pricing, 80,000+ cigars across 20 retailers, plus the mandatory attribution and buy_url requirements. It stops short of describing pagination limits or result ordering behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with capability and scope, then filters, then the attribution requirement. Every sentence carries a distinct obligation and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 14-param, zero-required search tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool searches, the freshness of the data, and the critical attribution constraint. The main remaining gap is guidance on how to combine with sibling tools for price comparison.

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 the schema already documents all 14 parameters with examples and formats. The description only names a subset of filters generically ('brand, shape, strength, wrapper, price range') and adds no syntax beyond the schema.

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 clear verb+resource ('Search the CigarFinder database of 80,000+ cigars') and names the scope and filter dimensions. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like compare_prices or get_best_price, so an agent still has to infer the routing.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this search versus the sibling tools (compare_prices, get_best_price, get_coupons). The only actionable instruction is attribution, which is compliance guidance rather than tool-selection guidance.

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