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

Annotations already declare this a safe, read-only, idempotent, closed-world read. Beyond that, the description adds real behavioral context: local businesses deliver same-day within 2 km via a neighborhood courier, and supplying colonia or CP prunes results to only what actually delivers there. That filtering side effect is the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs and cannot get from the schema. It stops short of describing result shape or what happens with an unrecognized colonia.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the verb and scope, then the delivery-filter behavior, then the currency note. The parenthetical business-type list and trailing ellipsis are slightly chatty, but every clause carries usable information; nothing is padding.

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?

Six optional parameters and no output schema, yet the description covers domain, geography, delivery semantics, and currency — enough to call it correctly. The remaining gap is what a result actually contains (fields per product, seller vs. local-business distinction), which the description only gestures at.

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 and the schema already documents each parameter including the categoria enum and price bound. The description earns above baseline by explaining the semantic consequence of colonia/codigo_postal — results are hard-filtered to deliverable inventory rather than merely ranked — which the schema's one-line descriptions do not convey.

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 ('Busca productos en NAO') and immediately scopes the resource domain: NAO sellers plus local colonia businesses (ferreterías, tlapalerías, farmacias...). That is far more than a restatement of the name/title. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the nearest sibling, buscar_tienditas_cerca, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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 (search a product with optional colonia/CP to get only deliverable results) but never says when this tool should be chosen over buscar_tienditas_cerca, ver_producto, or ver_tiendita. No exclusions or prerequisites are given, so the agent must infer routing from the parameter set alone.

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