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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing that the catalog is 'live' and enumerating the returned fields (titles, USD prices, in-stock sizes, descriptions, images, URLs), which matters given there is no output schema.

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 tightly written sentences with zero filler. The core action and domain are front-loaded, and the return-value sentence follows immediately, so an agent gets both in one pass.

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 an 8-parameter, zero-required search tool with no output schema and no annotations gap, the description covers the essential facts: it is a read-only live search, all filters are optional, and the return payload is enumerated. The remaining gap is pagination/default-limit behavior, which the schema only partially implies.

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 63%, so most parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description only adds the general note that filters are optional; it says nothing about pagination semantics for limit/offset (including the max of 50) or what include_unavailable changes, leaving the two undocumented parameters unclarified.

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/Browse) and resource (Corbah's live catalog), and scopes it to cycling jerseys, bib shorts, skinsuits and accessories. It implicitly separates itself from get_product (single item) and list_collections, but never names those siblings, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

'All filters optional' tells the agent the call is safe to make with no arguments, which is useful invocation guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-get_product statement or guidance on narrowing results when a query returns too many matches; usage is only implied by the browse-vs-lookup distinction.

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