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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behaviour, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds materially beyond that: it discloses a data-coverage limitation (targets not recorded for every market), prescribes the recovery strategy, and warns not to conclude absence of products. It does not explain result ordering or how limit interacts with total matches, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Purpose and filter scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, usage example second, and the fallback caveat last. Every sentence carries actionable information with no filler, despite the description being longer than average.

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?

With seven optional parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description supplies exactly what is missing: what the return is ("a compact list of matching products"), how to combine filters, and how to behave when coverage gaps produce empty results. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is absent.

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 every parameter including query word-AND semantics and locale defaults is already documented in structured data. The description adds only the conceptual framing that filters combine with "and/or", which is useful but not meaningfully beyond the schema baseline.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Search the Life Scientific crop-protection catalogue") and enumerates the exact filter dimensions. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings get_product and get_product_documents, which retrieve single records and label documents rather than listing matches.

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 an explicit use case ("problem-first questions like 'what controls septoria in wheat in Ireland?'") and a concrete fallback when a target search returns nothing: re-search by crop and type, then point the user to get_product_documents. It also names the sibling to use for label confirmation, so the routing decision is fully determined.

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