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

The description goes well beyond annotations by stating the tool never raises protocol errors but returns an error object on invalid input, that every call is read-only and idempotent, that it's free, and that browsing is possible with empty query. Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds critical edge-case behavior and error handling. No contradiction with annotations.

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 and front-loaded with key purpose in the first sentence, followed by examples, usage rules, and error behavior. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. Structure flows logically from purpose to usage to edge cases.

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 3 optional parameters with 100% schema coverage, annotations, output schema, and 9 sibling tools, the description covers purpose, scope, typical input/output, alternative tools, error behavior, safety (read-only/idempotent), and browsing use case. No gaps remain for an agent to safely invoke this tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how parameters work in context (e.g., 'empty query with an area set browses that area', 'values outside 1-100 are clamped'), which clarifies behavior beyond schema types. It doesn't detail all parameter semantics exhaustively, but adds meaningful usage context.

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 searches all 138 catalog products by keyword and/or focus area, with specific verb 'search' and resource 'catalog products'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming list_kits and recommend_products, making the scope 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 gives explicit guidance on when to use it (when caller names a keyword, product, or focus area) and when not to (for bundles use list_kits, for problem statements use recommend_products). This leaves no ambiguity about alternatives.

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