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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: output is a host-rendered card grid, unresolved IDs yield found=false, and validation errors occur for >50 or no identifiers. This is valuable and consistent with annotations.

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 organized into clear labeled sections (USE WHEN, INPUT, OUTPUT, NOT FOR, ERRORS), with each line carrying actionable information. It is longer than average, but every section contributes to correct tool selection and invocation, making it efficient for its purpose.

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 tool's moderate complexity and lack of output schema, the description covers all key aspects: input constraints, output format, failure semantics for unresolved IDs, validation limits, and alternative tools. An agent can decide when and how to call this tool without ambiguity.

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?

The input schema already documents parameters with digit constraints and preference, and coverage is 100%. The description adds extra semantics: minimum 1 / maximum 50 products, both DAN and GTIN can be used together, and validation error conditions. This enhances schema-only knowledge.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves dm-drogeriemarkt products and renders them as a visual card grid with specified fields (image, brand, name, link). It differentiates itself from siblings by explicitly excluding ingredients, prices, and other details that belong to getProductDetails.

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 provides explicit USE WHEN and NOT FOR guidance, including when to prefer searchProducts if only a product name is known. It names the alternative tool (getProductDetails) for excluded use cases, making selection unambiguous.

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