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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which is consistent with the description. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it mentions the cost ($0.10) and API key requirement, which are critical for the agent to know before invocation. However, it doesn't detail what happens if the query is empty or handle errors, but the openWorldHint=false indicates limited scope, making this adequate.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose incl. fields, followed by return value summary and then the cost/auth note. Every sentence serves a purpose, no fluff. Minor deduction for lack of explicit structure to break out cost and auth, but overall efficient.

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 an output schema presentchers, the description doesn't need to explain returns, but it does touch on key return fields. However, the lack of parameter elaboration and alternative routing makes it less complete for a search tool that has nuances like 'owned inventory' vs other search scopes. Adequate for a simple search but missing edge cases like empty query behavior.

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 schema has zero description coverage, and the description does not elaborate on the 'query' parameter beyond what the name implies. With only one parameter, this is a significant gap—the agent gets no guidance on format, examples, or what constitutes a valid query. The description's mention of searching by fields gives some implicit meaning, but it's insufficient for a tool that relies heavily on the query parameter.

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 clearly identifies the tool's function: searching owned inventory by specific fields (name, brand, model, notes). This not only states the verb and resource but also distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_inventory' which likely returns all inventory, and 'search' which is broader.

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 usage for searching within owned inventory, but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like 'get_inventory' or broader 'search'. The context of 'owned inventory' and the fields mentioned give clear context, but no explicit when-not or alternative routing is provided.

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