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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, and the description adds real behavioral context on top: a hard cap of 20 results, newest-first ordering, an 'approved-only' scope, and the short-query no-results behavior. Only the return field list overlaps with the output schema, which is minor redundancy rather than a gap.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the scope and result cap front-loaded and the chaining hint placed immediately after the id explanation. Every sentence carries a distinct fact.

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 one-param read tool with annotations and an output schema, everything an agent needs is present: scope, ordering, result cap, minimum query length, and how the returned id is consumed. The return fields are already in the output schema, so no further explanation is required.

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% and already documents the single query param and its 100-character truncation. The description still adds meaning beyond the schema by declaring a two-character minimum below which nothing is returned — a constraint an agent cannot see in the schema and would otherwise trip over.

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 approved products on Neeed Directory') plus ordering ('newest first'), which lets an agent infer this is the query-driven counterpart to list_products. It stops short of naming the sibling to prefer for browsing, so the differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

Gives a clear downstream routing rule — 'pass it to fetch for a plain-text card' — which is genuinely actionable chaining guidance. It does not say when to prefer search over list_products/list_categories, so the alternative-selection side is left to inference.

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