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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the bar is lower; the description nonetheless adds real behavioral context by scoping results to '판매 중인' products only and disclosing the fallback ordering when the query is empty. It does not describe result volume or ordering guarantees beyond the default case.

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 tightly written sentences: purpose first, then filterable dimensions, then the no-query default. Nothing is redundant and every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 read-only search tool with annotations carrying the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed to invoke it correctly: what is searched, what filters exist, and what happens with an empty query. Return-shape details are correctly out of scope, and the missing 'limit' documentation is minor.

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 coverage is 80%, so a 3 is the baseline. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by defining what the query field matches against (product name, ingredients, origin, producer) and by grouping category/price/shipping as 'filter' conditions, exceeding the schema's plain examples. The one gap is the undocumented 'limit' parameter, which appears in neither schema description nor description text.

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 and resource ('판매 중인 상품을 검색합니다') and enumerates the field surface the search covers (상품명·원재료·산지·생산자), so an agent immediately knows this is a multi-criteria product search. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_product (single-item lookup), which keeps it below 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?

It clearly states the filter options (검색어, 카테고리, 최대 가격, 무료배송) and gives the important default behavior when no query is supplied (추천순 목록). What is missing is explicit routing guidance, e.g. telling the agent to use get_product for details of a result or list_categories to obtain a category slug.

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