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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond them — no pagination ceiling (page/limit), no note on result volume, and no warning that pricing=customer depends on a logged-in session (that lives only in the schema).

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the searchable dimensions and followed by the use case; no filler.

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 17 mostly undocumented parameters, no required fields, and no output-schema explanation needed, the description is far too thin: it never clarifies which parameters interact, whether any combination is required, or how paging and sorting behave.

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 only 12% across 17 parameters, so the description carries most of the burden; it names some searchable axes (SKU, MPN, GTIN, brand, price, shop, vehicle) but omits how they combine, and says nothing about lang, page, limit, sort, category_id, registration, vehicle_cc or in_stock.

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 (find) and resource (products) and enumerates the searchable dimensions, which lets an agent distinguish it from get_product. It does not explicitly say it is the list/multi-result counterpart to get_product, but the scope is clear.

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?

"Use for shopping and product comparison requests" implies context but gives no when-not guidance and never references the siblings get_product or check_vehicle_compatibility, leaving the agent to infer when to search versus fetch or check fitment.

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