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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds valuable domain behavior beyond that: what a poster contains (headlines from one year, personalisation fields), that it's digital-only ('nothing is posted'), and the shape of the return value (handle, prices, product page).

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?

Front-loads the product definition, then packs occasion/edition rules and the next-step call into a compact block. Three sentences of dense but non-redundant prose; slightly could be trimmed but every sentence carries information.

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 5-param, zero-required search tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns (handle, prices, product page), the delivery model, and the follow-up tool. It omits explicit pagination/limit behavior and whether all params are optional, but the coverage is strong enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 each parameter (year, edition, occasion, milestone, buyer_country) is already documented. The description adds domain context around editions ('pick by where the recipient lives or grew up') and which occasions are milestone-driven, but does not add parameter-level syntax beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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) and resource (personalised newspaper-style posters) with unusual precision: it explains the product, its delivery form ('print-ready digital file, nothing is posted'), and explicitly names the next step tool get_poster_form. An agent can distinguish this from get_poster_form and create_poster_checkout without opening a 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?

Gives clear context: use this to find posters by year, occasion/milestone, and edition, and directs the agent to get_poster_form as the next step. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it versus upload_photo or get_photo_upload_link, but for a product-catalog search tool the routing is sufficiently clear.

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