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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely useful semantics beyond them: terms are ANDed, products lacking a filtered attribute are excluded rather than assumed to match, and an empty result has a precise meaning. It does not discuss pagination limits or result ordering beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the scope and facets, then matching semantics, then return shape. The material list is long but earns its place by anchoring search relevance; no filler sentences.

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 11 optional parameters, no output schema and no required arguments, the description supplies enough to call the tool correctly: what is searchable, how filters combine, and what comes back (a per-product summary plus a url). Minor gaps remain around pagination defaults and sort behaviour, which the schema only partially covers.

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 82%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter, including material family resolution and category slugs. The description restates the filter dimensions and units (litres) and clarifies the AND/conjunctive behaviour of combined filters, but adds no new value per individual parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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) plus the exact resource (the Fortitude21 liquid containment catalogue) and enumerates the product families covered. It clearly differs from siblings such as get_product_details, get_product_categories and compare_products without the agent needing the schema.

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?

It makes the intended use clear – faceted filtering of the catalogue by material, capacity, category, application, certification and pricing type – and points to get_product_categories as the source of valid category slugs. It notes that results are summaries with a url for the full record, implicitly routing detail lookups elsewhere, but never states explicit when-not conditions or names alternatives such as check_product_requirements.

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