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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real value: public/no-OAuth auth requirement, bounded paging with an exact total, and an instruction to avoid overly broad queries. It does not cover cursor expiry or window semantics, but those live 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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence earns its place by adding a distinct fact (return shape, query narrowness guidance, auth, safety). No repetition of schema content.

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 an output schema present and rich annotations, the description does not need to explain return values, and it still supplies auth posture and paging behavior. For an 8-parameter search tool with nested filters, it is close to complete, though nothing tells the agent how this composes with get_catalog_filters or search_brands when building filter inputs.

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 100% across all 8 parameters including the nested filters object, so the schema fully documents q, page, cursor, sort, brand_id, section_id, per_page and the filter sub-fields. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (Find) plus resource (current catalog products) with a scope qualifier: it mirrors storefront search and filters, which cleanly separates it from get_product (single item) and get_catalog_filters (filter metadata). It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

"Narrow overly broad queries" is actionable guidance on how to shape a call, and the schema carries the omit-to-browse fallback. But there is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusion conditions, so usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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