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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that results are a ranked subset rather than the full catalogue, but says nothing about ordering semantics, whether results are relevance-scored, or how `topK` truncation affects recall.

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 zero waste. The core behavior is front-loaded and the sibling routing follows immediately after.

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 two-parameter, fully-documented search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and how its result set differs from a listing. The remaining gap is the undocumented `search` sibling relationship rather than anything about this tool's own mechanics.

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 both `query` and `topK` are already documented, and the default of 3 applies. The description reinforces the natural-language intent of `query` and implies ranked "closest matches" semantics for `topK`, but adds no format or behavior detail 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Find products relevant to a natural-language query") and explicitly distinguishes itself from `list_products`. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling `search` tool, which an agent could plausibly confuse with this one.

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?

It gives an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it: use `list_products` for the complete catalogue. There is no guidance on when to prefer `search` or `get_product` instead, so the routing is clear against one sibling but not all of them.

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