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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds that the result is a page of products shaped as picker tiles, which is useful framing, but says nothing about pagination behavior even though a cursor parameter exists. An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required.

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 compact sentences with no filler, and the picker context is front-loaded. The second sentence is a slightly abrupt redirect but earns its place by naming the alternative.

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?

With a full schema, complete parameter docs, and an output schema, most of the burden is carried by structured fields. The description nevertheless leaves an agent unsure whether this is an agent-facing tool at all, since it reads as documentation of a UI's internal call.

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 all eight parameters are already documented, including cross-references to search_products, list_product_facets, and list_collections. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 the resource (a page of products, as picker tiles) and its calling context (the product picker, invoked as the merchant searches and filters). It also distinguishes itself from search_products by naming that sibling as the general finding tool. The verb is only implied ('calls it as the merchant searches and filters'), keeping it short of a fully specific verb+resource statement.

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?

'search_products is the tool for finding products' explicitly points to the alternative, which is the strongest guidance here. The trigger context ('as the merchant searches and filters') implies when this tool is relevant, but it never states whether an agent should call it directly or only the picker UI should.

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