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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses ranking behavior, the browse mode when query is omitted, returned product summaries with from-price, and the no-match behavior exposing facets.categories and notes. This gives an agent a clear picture of what to expect from the call.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the main action and examples first, followed by ranking, browse behavior, and fallback behavior. Every sentence adds operational value and none are redundant with the schema or annotations.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned: product summaries, a from-price, and a handle for downstream tools. It also covers ranking, browser-style usage, and no-match fallback, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 56% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining how query, category, color, size, and price filters interact, and how sort relates to relevance/price. It also clarifies the important query-omission browsing behavior. Page and page_size are not elaborated, but the core semantic choices are well covered.

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 finds branded merchandise by keywords with optional filters, and explains the returned handle is meant for get_product or quote_price. This is a specific verb+resource and conveys what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling lookup_catalog.

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 gives concrete guidance: omit query with a category to browse, use category facets when nothing matches, and pass the returned handle to get_product or quote_price. It provides useful context and a fallback path, though it does not formally list exclusions or sibling alternatives.

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