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

Annotations provided (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already cover safety. The description adds important context such as 'Prices are not quotes', the distinction between catalog visibility and template support, and the nature of failed detail reads. However, it doesn't detail what happens with zero results or any rate limits, but given annotation coverage the added context is strong.

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 compact for the amount of information, but it packs several details into one long sentence at the start. It front-loads the core purpose, but the sentence could be broken up for readability. Still, every sentence adds value, and no fluff exists.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 params, no output schema), the description covers the key points: return fields, the next step (get_product), and clarifying caveats. The absence of an output schema is compensated by describing the returned data. Slight gaps remain on edge cases like zero results or pagination, but it is robust overall.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters thoroughly. The description adds a note about the `limit` parameter (returns up to `limit` products) and mentions the optional filters, but does not add much beyond what the schema says. Baseline 3 is appropriate due to high coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's function: searching the public InkFE print catalog by free text. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like list_business_card_templates and get_product, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('when the buyer wants something other than a business card') and when-not-to-use ('Business cards designed from a template do not need this tool'), explicitly naming the alternative list_business_card_templates. It also mentions using get_product after this, providing clear routing.

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