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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and that this stays within a closed catalog, but the description adds real behavioral value beyond them: a hard cap of eight results, and the shape of each entry (price, review count, fit by vehicle or mount, page). It does not say what happens on zero matches, but the substantive constraints are disclosed.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the core action and appends filters and return fields; nothing is redundant. It borders on list-heavy, but every clause carries information.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates returned fields and the result cap, and annotations cover the safety profile. The main omission is failure/empty-result behavior, but for a bounded four-parameter search tool this is largely 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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented with examples in the schema. The description restates them (query as 'shopper's words', brand, category, price ceiling) without adding syntax, defaults, or clarification beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (Search) and resource (Rack Warehouse's catalog) and characterizes the operation precisely: free-text search like the site's search box, returning up to eight products with defined fields. This is clearly distinguishable from get_product (id lookup) and check_fit/what_fits (fit queries), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 'search box' framing implies the usage context (natural-language shopper query, optionally narrowed by category/brand/price), which is good implicit guidance. However, it offers no when-not guidance and never points to check_fit, what_fits, or get_product as alternatives for fit or single-product lookups, so the agent must infer routing.

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