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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world search, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing return content (product ids, starting delivered price, optional facet counts) and supported destinations. It says nothing about ordering defaults (relevance), pagination via limit/offset, or result-set size limits.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the usage condition, and every clause carries operational content — no filler. The supplier roster is slightly long but is also the domain definition, so it earns its place.

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 15-parameter, zero-required search with a nested specs object and an output schema, the description supplies the conceptual model (browse vs query, filter axes, destination-scoped pricing) and defers return-shape detail to the output schema. What's missing is pagination/ordering behaviour and how filters combine (AND vs OR).

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?

With 60% schema coverage the description meaningfully supplements: it explains that query accepts product type, brand or model with concrete examples (Bella+Canvas 3001, Gildan 5000), and enumerates the filter dimensions (category, brand, supplier, audience, specs, weight) that map to distinct parameters. It omits sort, currency, pricedOnly and pagination semantics, which remain schema-only.

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 and resource ('search_products') scoped to POD products across named suppliers, which is far more precise than the title alone. It implicitly differentiates from compare_product, though it doesn't clarify its boundary against get_product / get_product_options.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger ('Use this when a seller wants to find a POD product') and gives two concrete entry paths: free-text product type/brand/model, or browsing with filters. It names compare_product as the tool for size/colour-level comparison, but gives no guidance on when to prefer get_product instead.

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