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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the operation safe; the description adds that the output consists of slugs, which clarifies that this tool does not provide full product details. This helps set expectations for a read-only search without contradicting the annotation.

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 sentences with no filler, front-loading the primary action and immediately clarifying the output format and follow-up purpose. This is an appropriately sized description.

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?

The description identifies the tool's purpose, the key filter criteria, and the return value (slugs), which is enough for a simple discovery operation. It does not explain limit behavior or result ordering, but given the lack of an output schema and the simple nature, the description is reasonably complete.

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?

The description explains that category, maxPrice, and hasFreeTier are filtering criteria, giving them meaning beyond their property names. However, it omits the limit parameter entirely, and with zero schema description coverage, this incomplete mapping leaves some ambiguity.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Find') and clearly identifies the resource ('software products') and the filtering criteria (category, max price, free tier). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like compare_software or get_pricing by framing this as a discovery step that returns slugs for later lookup.

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 description implies a workflow by stating it 'Returns matching slugs to look up', suggesting this is the entry point before using other tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so the guidance remains somewhat implicit.

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