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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds real value by disclosing the return payload ('price and availability'), but says nothing about result count defaults, the limit cap, or behavior when the language differs from the query language.

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?

Two sentences, no filler: the search surface and its examples come first, the return contract second. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only, single-required-param search with no output schema, the description covers what is searched and what comes back. The remaining gap is result volume — neither the default nor the 20-item cap is surfaced, which matters for an agent planning follow-up calls.

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 only 33% — just the language enum is documented in the schema — so the description must compensate. It does clarify what 'query' accepts (name, brand, ingredient, symptom) with examples, but 'limit' (1–20) is explained nowhere and the description never mentions language selection.

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 pharmacy catalog') and enumerates the matchable fields (name, brand, active ingredient, symptom keyword) with concrete examples. It doesn't explicitly name siblings like browse_category or current_deals, so the boundary with browsing is only implied.

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 example queries (paracetamol, sunscreen, Panadol) imply that this is the keyword-lookup tool, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit 'use this when / use browse_category instead when' guidance and no mention of alternatives among the six siblings.

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