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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior — ranked category paths with numeric ids and a flag for whether the query is itself a valid category. It stops short of describing ranking criteria or what an empty result means.

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, both loaded: the first defines the resource and the return shape, the second enumerates use cases. No filler, and the highest-value information (what it searches, what it returns) comes first.

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 carries return-value disclosure and does so (paths, numeric ids, validity flag). Combined with a 100%-documented two-param schema and clear annotations, an agent has everything needed to call this 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline would be 3, but the description adds the useful semantic that the query may legitimately be a free-text term, a full path, or an id, and that a valid path/id short-circuits into a validity check rather than a search. The limit parameter is left entirely to 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 and resource ('Search Google's product taxonomy') and immediately defines the resource as 'the set of valid googleProductCategory values', which separates it from sibling map_categories without the agent opening any schema.

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?

Gives three concrete selecting conditions: finding the right category for a product type, fixing unmatched entries from map_categories, and validating a value before writing it into a rule. The map_categories reference explicitly routes the agent between the two tools.

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