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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it searches a live catalog, tolerates language/typo variations, and discloses that checkoutUrl 'puts the item in the cart and opens checkout'—a non-obvious side effect worth flagging. Nothing contradicts the 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 longer than average but each sentence carries scope, behavior, or return-value information. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource. Shipping destinations and 'personally tested' are slightly peripheral, but they do not obscure the essential invocation guidance.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by explicitly listing returned fields (price, stock status, url, checkoutUrl). Combined with full parameter schema coverage and safety annotations, the agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly. Omitted details like result ordering or empty-result behavior are non-critical for a search tool.

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 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description enriches query semantics beyond the schema by explaining that abbreviations, Dutch/English names, typos, and localized Pokémon names are understood, and it gives concrete examples. This adds real meaning for how the query parameter behaves.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Search the live catalog of Gameshop Enter'. It enumerates the catalog scope (retro Nintendo games, consoles, PS4/5, Pokémon TCG) and explicitly states what the tool returns, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_product or store_info.

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 by emphasizing query flexibility (abbreviations, typos, multilingual names), but it never names alternatives or states when to choose search_products over get_product, get_quote, or store_info. The usage context is clear, but exclusions and alternative routing are left to inference.

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