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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses the paginated return format, the parallel verifications array with its fields (brand_verified, kyb_tier, etc.), and the underlying MoR + KYB cascade that supports the badge. This adds meaningful behavioral context not present in annotations.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action and result type, the second details the verification array, and the third gives practical usage guidance. It is front-loaded and free of fluff.

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?

Given a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the return payload (product summaries and verifications), the verification fields, and recommendation guidance. It slightly omits pagination mechanics (e.g., how to page through results), but overall it is adequately 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'query' as free-text and mentions pagination, but limit's behavior (e.g., max results, defaults) is only in the schema's default/max fields. The description provides context for query but not detailed semantics for limit.

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 starts with 'Search the public droplinked catalog by free-text query', clearly stating the action (search), resource (public droplinked catalog), and query type (free-text). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_product (specific product lookup) and list_shop_products (shop-scoped listing).

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 when to use the tool—any free-text search against the catalog—and adds guidance to prefer verified merchants when citing recommendations. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is clear.

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