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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully declares 'Read-only' and sketches the return shape (compact items, retail_price in CNY cents, available_qty, inventory snapshot time), which is valuable absent an output schema. It omits pagination behavior, result limits, and whether filters combine as AND/OR.

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 core action and immediately followed by the return contract. No filler; every clause adds information.

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 six-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the return values well but leaves all input parameters undocumented. It is partially complete – strong on outputs, weak on 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?

All six parameters have 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains query semantics, the meaning/units of price_min/price_max (contrast the CNY-cents note given only for the return field), category_id, or page/page_size pagination.

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 and resource ('Search the product shelf'), so the agent knows this is a read-search over shelf inventory. However, it does not distinguish itself from clearly overlapping siblings such as shelf_search and cps_smart_search, which an agent would need help disambiguating.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many sibling search tools (shelf_search, cps_smart_search, cps_jd_goods_search, cps_pdd_goods_search). No context or exclusion criteria are provided, leaving selection entirely to inference.

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