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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description's job is lighter, and it adds real context: input is a natural-language want and the response surfaces sizes, colours, prices and making time. It stops short of describing result ordering, match quality, or what happens when nothing matches, which are the remaining behavioral gaps.

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, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the return contents. The example is short and directly clarifies the input style, so every element earns its place.

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 one-parameter search with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it searches, what form the input takes, and roughly what comes back. Only minor gaps remain (no-match behavior and how to proceed to quoting/ordering), which are not strictly required here.

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% for the single "request" parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description does add modest meaning by showing a concrete natural-language example ("something to hold my phone while I cook"), confirming the param is free-form conversational text rather than a keyword or ID.

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 ("what Unfactory can make"), so the agent knows this is a catalog lookup rather than a wish/order action. It does not explicitly name a sibling to distinguish itself from (e.g. get_quote for pricing an item), but the domain separation from the wish/order tools is clear from the wording.

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 implies when to use it — when you have a free-text description of a desired object — but never states when not to use it or points to alternatives. An agent must infer on its own whether get_quote or place_order is the correct follow-up rather than a second search.

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