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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful behavioral facts beyond that: prices are in DKK including VAT, and checkout happens on the product URL rather than through this tool. It says nothing about result ordering, pagination behavior, or what happens when the catalog returns no matches.

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, each carrying distinct information (scope, pricing, purchase location), with the scope statement front-loaded. No filler or repetition, though the category enumeration is partly redundant with the enum and could have been spent on undocumented parameters instead.

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?

The tool is a simple read-only catalog search with no required parameters and no output schema, and the description covers the three things an agent actually needs: what is searchable, how prices are denominated, and that buying happens elsewhere. Remaining gaps such as result shape and ordering are minor for this complexity level.

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 only 40%, so the description needs to compensate and it does so only partially: it clarifies currency/VAT semantics for max_price and lists catalog categories. However, that category list (including "gavekort" and "adventskalender") does not match the actual enum values (buketter, gavesaet, begravelse, gaver), which can mislead, and the limit and in_stock parameters are explained nowhere.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Søg i Flowerings katalog") and enumerates the catalog contents (bouquets, gift sets, funeral bouquets, gift cards, advent calendar), so the agent knows this is a catalog text/category search rather than a single-item lookup like get_product. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with the sibling get_product, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool for finding products by free text or category, and the closing sentence signals it is not the purchase path. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to get_product for full product details, so it remains at the minimum-viable level.

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