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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the catalog scope ('product and API credit catalog') and an example, but it does not explain result limits, matching behavior, or whether the search is fuzzy or exact.

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?

The description is two short sentences and front-loads the purpose before a useful invocation example. Every sentence contributes without unnecessary 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?

An output schema exists, so return values do not need explanation, and the schema covers both parameters. However, the description omits sibling differentiation and usage conditions, leaving the agent to infer when this search tool is preferable to lookup_catalog or get_product.

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%, so both the query and catalog parameters are already documented in the schema. The description provides an example for query but adds no meaningful semantics for the optional catalog scope filter beyond what the schema already states.

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 states a specific verb and resource: search the UCP product and API credit catalog by keyword. It is clear enough to distinguish keyword search from direct retrieval, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like lookup_catalog or get_product.

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?

It gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus lookup_catalog, get_product, or get_product_details. The keyword-search framing implies a use case, but there are no explicit conditions or exclusions.

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