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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description redundantly states 'Read-only', so no new safety info is added. It does add domain context (what merch exists) which helps the agent frame results, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or empty-result 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 clauses, front-loaded with the action and resource. 'Read-only' is redundant with annotations, slightly wasting space, but overall compact and well-ordered.

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?

A search tool with 0% parameter descriptions, no output schema, and no explanation of result shape or result limits. The description should at minimum clarify how query filters and what a search returns, but instead only describes the catalog domain.

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 0% and neither parameter is explained. The description mentions product types matching the 'type' enum values, but gives no meaning for 'query' (free text? matching against what fields?) or how the two params combine. It partially compensates by listing the type category but leaves query undocumented.

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 (Search) and resource (merch/products), and gives concrete examples (tees, hoodies, stickers) plus the target audience. This distinguishes it from get_product (single item) and create_checkout_link. It doesn't distinguish itself explicitly from siblings in text, but the resource scope is clear.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus get_product or the checkout tools. The agent must infer that search is for browsing and get_product is for known IDs. No exclusions, no follow-up flow described.

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