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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden, and it delivers: it discloses storefront-visibility filtering, the two price types (authoritative and displayed with approximate-conversion marking), availability, commercial state of outbound links, and the policy that retailer/affiliate URLs are never exposed.

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 tightly written sentences: the first states the exact purpose and scope, the second packs the key return-field and URL-policy details. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 scope, visibility filtering, key returned fields, and link policy, which is strong for a no-output-schema tool. It leaves minor gaps around pagination/limit semantics and the exact output shape, but schema defaults and constraints cover part of that.

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 63%, so some parameters already have descriptions. The description explains return behavior but adds little to the semantics of sort, limit, offset, or query/category interaction, so it does not significantly compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search Mamanida's maternity and nursing clothing catalogue for one storefront.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_product or compare_products by emphasizing storefront-scoped catalogue search.

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 gives clear usage context: search is scoped 'for one storefront' and 'returns only products a visitor of that storefront can actually see.' It does not explicitly name excluded alternatives, but the storefront-visibility framing allows an agent to select this over detail/comparison tools.

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