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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by specifying return fields, the max of 25 matches, and advice to narrow queries if results are truncated—going beyond the basic annotation info.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, and every detail is useful. There is no fluff or repetition, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the simple two-parameter tool, full schema documentation, read-only annotations, and an output schema, the description covers all necessary details including truncation behavior. It is complete for an AI agent to select and invoke correctly.

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% for both parameters, but the description enriches semantics by explaining that 'query' matches title/brand/SKU and that 'limit' caps results at 25. This adds meaning beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 ('Search') and resource ('MASTER product catalog'), defines matching fields (title, brand, SKU), and distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_inventory and search_orders. This satisfies the criteria for specific verb+resource+differentiation.

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?

The description gives clear context: free-text search over the master product catalog, with fields like MRP and status. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough to guide selection among similar search tools.

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