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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and a closed-world catalog (openWorldHint=false). Beyond that, the description adds genuinely useful behavior: AND-match semantics for multi-word queries, bilingual (Thai/English) support, and the pagination ceiling of 20 per page across 10 pages. It does not mention ordering or empty-result behavior, but the added context is substantive.

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 dense sentences that front-load the core action, then the return payload, then pagination limits. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's enumeration of returned fields (name, SKU, URL, image, category, brand, pre-VAT price, stock) is necessary and present. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, the definition is nearly complete; only result-ordering and no-match behavior are absent.

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?

With only 50% schema description coverage, the description compensates well: it defines query semantics ('all words must match', Thai or English, or SKU) which the schema does not, marks category as optional, and pins the per_page/page bounds ('Max 20 per page, 10 pages') that the schema only encodes as numeric min/max. Page defaults and offset behavior remain unstated, keeping it short of a 5.

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 and resource ('Search the public FURRINGLINE catalog') plus the two matching modes (words or SKU) and the optional category narrowing. It is clearly distinguishable from get_product and list_categories by implication, though it never names a sibling to route the agent explicitly.

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?

Explains how to search (words vs SKU, optional category) but gives no when-to-use guidance relative to get_product (single-item lookup) or list_categories. Usage is implied by the matching-mode description rather than stated as a selection rule.

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