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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one non-obvious trait: contacts are never shown, implying an anonymized/read-only result set. However, it says nothing about pagination, ranking, or result format, leaving most behavioral context unstated.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the scope statement is front-loaded before the contacts caveat. Efficient, though the second sentence is a constraint rather than usage guidance.

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 3-parameter search tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description omits parameter meanings, result shape, and any guidance on how results should be narrowed or consumed. It is insufficient for an agent to call it confidently.

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 must compensate for all three parameters (q, industri, maks_harga) and largely fails to. 'Industries' loosely hints at the industri filter, but the query string and max-price semantics, formats, and optionality are never explained.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (products, services, AI agents, data) scoped to the OCKLU brokerage across many sellers and industries. An agent can distinguish it from lihat_katalog or detail_produk by the breadth of the search, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 never says when to use this tool versus the many siblings (lihat_katalog, detail_produk, minta_dipertemukan, sampaikan_kebutuhan). There are no prerequisites or exclusions; the agent must infer the search-vs-browse distinction on its own.

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