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

The description discloses that results are GTIN-anchored, include the best offer (lowest price in integer minor units), and a shop count—details not in the annotations. The tool is annotated as read-only and idempotent, and the description's search behavior is consistent with that, adding useful context beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is three sentences, each serving a purpose: what it is, when to use it, and what it returns. No redundant filler; front-loaded with the tool's core purpose.

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 search tool with annotations and a full output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, and key return characteristics. It does not mention pagination or edge cases, but the schema covers limit and the output schema would handle return structure, so the description is sufficiently 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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for all five parameters (100% coverage), including enums and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but it does clarify the meaning of 'best offer' in the return value; since coverage is high, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool searches Ponito's product catalogue and returns GTIN-anchored products with best offers and shop count. It gives situational examples ('finding products, comparing options...'), differentiating it from a generic search, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_product or get_price_history.

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 explicitly instructs 'Call this for any shopping query' and lists concrete use cases, providing clear context for when to invoke it. It does not mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, so it lacks exclusions.

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