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

The description discloses cost constraints and parameter validations (minimum 2-char query, 1-50 limit), which are not present in annotations. However, it does not describe return format, error behavior, or rate limits, leaving some important behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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?

At two short sentences plus a compact Args section, the description is tightly written and front-loads the key purpose and cost. No filler words.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and constraints, but lacks a description of the return content/structure. Since no output schema is provided, this omission leaves the agent to infer what the response contains.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions, but the description compensates by explaining q as a search term with examples and a minimum length, and limit with a range (1-50) and default via schema. This fully clarifies the parameters.

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 begins with 'Search in-date SADC products by name or brand,' which names a specific action (search), resource (products), and scope (SADC, in-date). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like deals and deals_hot, which likely list or highlight deals.

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 examples and the qualifier 'in-date SADC products' imply when the tool is useful, but the description does not explicitly compare it to alternatives or state exclusions. The cost note ('paid, $0.005/req or pass') suggests a consideration but not a usage rule.

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