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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: result URLs must be the PoloPan short purchase link from GET /products/link/{handle}, never the raw catalog URL. It also clarifies the underlying similarity mechanism, going beyond what annotations provide.

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 with no waste: the first states the core use case, the second pins a non-obvious URL rule that prevents calling errors. Both earn their 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?

With 8 parameters, enums, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and a critical output convention. The only gap is the somewhat opaque 'same logic as extension' reference, which an agent without product-specific knowledge may not fully unpack.

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 the schema already documents all 8 parameters. The description only reasserts the budget_range and handle concepts at a high level and does not add constraints, formats, or interactions beyond 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+resource ('Find product alternatives') and a precise scope ('within a selected budget range using product image similarity'). Differentiates implicitly from siblings like products.search.text and products.search.image_upload by focusing on alternatives via image similarity.

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?

Provides clear contextual triggers: budget range + image similarity. The 'same logic as extension' reference hints at reuse, but the description does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use this tool over products.search.text or image-based search.

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