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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it explains real behavior: the catalog is live, products are personally tested, shipping is limited to the EU, and the query matcher tolerates abbreviations, Dutch/English names, and typos. It also discloses the return contents (EUR price, stock status, buy URL), which meaningfully informs an agent beyond the schema.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary action and resource. Some details like 'personally tested' and 'shipping to all 27 EU countries' are contextual rather than essential to invoking the tool, but the text remains efficient and focused.

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?

For a search tool with a well-covered schema and no output schema, the description provides enough return-value details (price, stock, buy URL) and query-handling behavior to guide correct use. It doesn't specify result ordering or pagination, but these are not critical for basic invocation and are partially covered by the schema's limit parameter.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine value for the query parameter by explaining it understands abbreviations, bilingual names, and typos. This is behavior the raw schema doesn't capture; other parameters like limit and maxPrice are already clearly described in the schema.

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 opens with 'Search the live catalog of Gameshop Enter', a specific verb-resource pair that identifies the tool's job. It distinguishes search from the siblings get_product, get_quote, and store_info by emphasizing catalog-wide search and product listing returns.

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 this is the tool for searching the catalog by title, character, franchise, or SKU, and notes it accepts abbreviations and typos. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_product or provide any when-not-to-use guidance.

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