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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that results come from a public catalog feed and that checkout pricing is out of scope, but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or how the store view changes results.

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 English sentence is front-loaded and efficient, and the scope constraint lands early. The Dutch sentence is a near-verbatim restatement that adds length without new information for most agents, and the stray facet list ('category, brand') is noise.

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 zero-required-parameter, fully documented read-only search tool with annotations, this is close to adequate. The remaining gaps are the phantom category/brand facets and the absence of any pointer to the sibling tool that supplies pricing or full product records.

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 would be 3, but the description actively introduces 'category' and 'brand' as search dimensions that are not parameters, which can mislead an agent into attempting unsupported filters. The 'short text' phrasing also loosely maps onto the query parameter without adding real semantics.

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+resource: 'Search or list products from the public catalog feed', and clarifies the discovery scope versus checkout pricing. However, it lists 'category, brand' as search facets that do not exist in the schema, and it never distinguishes itself from the sibling gnv_product tool, so an agent cannot fully disambiguate from the text alone.

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?

'Discovery only, not the checkout price' gives a clear boundary on what the tool is not for, and the schema notes leaving query out lists everything. But there is no explicit guidance naming gnv_product for full product details/pricing or gnv_knowledge_search for other lookups, so the when-to-use-this-vs-sibling decision is only implied.

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