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 one genuinely useful behavior beyond that — typo correction — but says nothing about result ordering, how many matches come back by default, or what happens when nothing matches.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and no filler. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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?

With no output schema, the description should at least sketch what comes back (a ranked list? product summaries? an empty result?), and it does not. It is adequate for a simple search tool but leaves the agent guessing about response shape and result count.

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% and the description only enriches `query` conceptually via its keyword examples; `limit` is entirely undocumented in both schema and description, and `lang`'s meaning comes solely from the schema. The keyword hints are a modest add, not a substitute for the missing parameter detail.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Find products") with concrete query-domain examples — garment, breed, colour, mood, gift idea — that tell an agent what kinds of keywords match. It implicitly separates itself from get_product (single-item lookup) but never names a sibling to make the contrast explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the keyword-discovery entry point before calling get_product, but the description states no when-to-use condition, no ordering relative to siblings, and no exclusions (e.g. that it is not for exact-ID lookups).

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