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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the result cap (up to 20), the returned data (current price and Lowvyn Score), and the id + canonicalUrl workflow for later calls. It does not discuss sorting, pagination, or side effects, but 'Search' plus these concrete return details goes well beyond a bare verb.

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 carry scope, filters, return shape, and routing guidance with no filler. The most important usage context is front-loaded and every sentence 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?

The description covers what the tool returns, the 20-result limit, and how results feed sibling tools, which is strong given there is no output schema. Minor gaps such as result ordering and no-result behavior do not significantly impair an agent's ability to call it correctly.

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 schema already documents query, category, maxPrice, and retailer with descriptions. The description merely mentions filters and CAD without adding new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names the exact operation — searching the Canadian product catalogue — and distinguishes it from sibling get_product by stating it is for category-level exploration, not a specific product. It also names downstream sibling tools that consume the returned id and canonicalUrl, reinforcing its role.

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?

It gives an explicit use case: 'Use this when a user is exploring what is available in a category rather than asking about a specific product.' It does not explicitly name get_product as the alternative for specific-product queries, though that is strongly implied by the downstream list, so exclusion guidance is partial rather than complete.

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