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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral detail: each result carries a canonical storefront url, and missing attributes remain unset rather than erroring. It does not cover pagination behavior or empty-result handling.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core purpose leads and the result-handling note follows. Nothing is wasted, though the sentences are terse enough that a little more filter detail could be added without bloat.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, but with 7 undocumented parameters at 0% coverage the description leaves core filtering behavior unspecified. For a multi-faceted catalogue search, the absence of any filter or pagination guidance is a real gap.

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 0% and the description supplies no detail about any of the 7 parameters. Terms like 'verified catalogue fields' and 'visible' hint at filtering but never map to q, fabric, region, occasion, technique, page, or limit, leaving the agent to guess filter semantics.

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 (visible Vaanzari sarees) scoped to verified catalogue fields, which distinguishes it from the singular get_saree sibling. It is clear what the tool returns at a high level, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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?

Usage is implied by the search framing, and the description adds a presentation instruction (include the canonical url as a clickable product link). However there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_saree or how to combine the fabric/region/occasion/technique filters.

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