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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's main added value is the return shape — key specs plus a best in-stock offer — which matters because there is no output schema. However, 'best' is undefined (price? availability?) and there is no note on ranking, defaults, or truncation 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?

Two short segments, with the capability statement front-loaded before the example. The example earns its place by demonstrating how query/category/limit combine, though it is somewhat longer than needed for a four-parameter tool.

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?

Reasonable for a search tool with no output schema: the return contents are summarised and filter error behavior lives in the schema. Still missing what an agent needs for edge cases — empty-parameter behavior, default result count, and how query interacts with filters.

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 only 25% — query, category, and limit are undocumented in the schema — and the description only partially compensates by mapping query to name search and category/filters to facet matching. The worked example shows the three parameters combined, but there is no guidance on precedence between query and filters, default limit, or when category is required.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Find products') and states both retrieval modes (by name, or by category/spec filters), plus what comes back ('key specs and the best in-stock offer'). This implicitly separates it from get_product (single item) and check_stock, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 phrase 'by name or by category and spec filters' implies when to reach for this tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as get_product for a known item or compare for side-by-side evaluation.

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