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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the returned fields (official release timing, price, status, limited-edition flag, source), which is meaningful since no output schema exists, but it says nothing about auth needs, rate limits, or result ordering.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the search verb and resource, then the return payload. No filler, though the packed parentheticals make it slightly heavy.

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 5-param search tool with no output schema, describing the return fields is valuable and covers the output side. The input side remains thin (no brand/limit/query guidance), so it is adequate but not complete.

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% across 5 params, so the description must compensate. It partially does: the listed status values (謠傳／官方公布／確定發售／已發售／再販／售完) gloss the English status enum and the toy categories map to the category enum. However brand, limit, and query syntax are left entirely to the schema.

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 (搜尋/search) and a clearly bounded resource (Asian 扭蛋、盒玩、公仔、模型), plus query examples (寶可夢、ちいかわ、鋼彈). It is distinguishable from get_toy and the calendar/news siblings by being a keyword search, though it never explicitly names those siblings.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus get_toy, release_calendar, or the news tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the word 搜尋, leaving routing entirely to inference.

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