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

readOnlyHint=true in annotations aligns with the search operation. The description adds useful behavior beyond the annotation: the return is capped at `limit` (max 25 lines), results are 'sorted by rating quality', max_box_price filters on the line's cheapest box, and min_rating reflects community ratings. This enriches the agent's expectations without contradicting the read-only hint.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and uses one line per filter, which is scannable. The value lists (strength, origin, wrapper) are compact and each sentence earns its place, though the free-form filter list could be more structured at a glance.

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?

For a 7-parameter search tool with 0% schema coverage, the description covers most filter semantics plus the limit cap and sort order. The output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out. The undocumented `query` parameter remains the main completeness gap.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and largely compensates: it enumerates allowed strength values, gives examples for origin and wrapper, explains max_box_price (cheapest box) and min_rating (1-5 community stars). However, the `query` parameter is never explained, which is a notable gap for a free-text search field.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Search premium cigar lines in the Neptune Cigars / Cigar Scanner catalog'), which is distinguishable from siblings like search_products (products broadly vs. cigar lines) and get_cigar_line (single-line retrieval vs. multi-line search). The scope is explicit and 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 clearly states that all filters are optional and explains the semantics of each filter, but it never tells an agent when to choose this tool over its siblings, such as search_products, get_cigar_line, or similar_cigars. No exclusions or alternative-routing guidance is provided.

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