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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that results are vetted ('Every result passed the published vetting criteria') and specifies the output shape ('lean records with page + markdown URLs') and a return limit of 10. This goes beyond a typical search description, though it does not mention auth, rate limits, or error behavior.

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 concise sentences, each adding value: first states action/scope, second highlights the vetting differentiator, third defines return behavior. No fluff or redundancy. Front-loaded with the main action.

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 simple read-only search tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core essentials: what is searched, the vetting, and the return format/limit. It does not mention the 'limit' parameter or sorting, but the tool complexity is low enough that this is acceptable. A 4 reflects that it is notably complete without being exhaustive.

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?

The schema documents 'query' with 'Product, material, or brand keywords,' covering 50% of parameters. The description adds value by specifying the search spans product name, description, or brand, which gives more nuance than the schema. However, it does not explicitly clarify the 'limit' parameter beyond implying a maximum of 10 results, so it only partially compensates for the missing schema description.

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 'Search the vetted non-toxic product catalog by product name, description, or brand.' This is a specific verb+resource with search fields. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_product or search_articles, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 provides clear context: use this to search for products by keyword, and it implies retrieval of multiple results ('up to 10 lean records'). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives (e.g., 'use get_product for a specific ID'), but the context is clear enough to infer typical usage.

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