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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description then adds genuinely new behavior: a failed search returns suggested categories and sections instead of an empty list, and each product carries `masterCode`, starting price and detail URL. It does not disclose result volume, pagination defaults or whether the filters can be combined, which is the remaining behavioral 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the no-argument behavior and then the argument modes; almost every clause carries information. The `outlet` definition (

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 5-parameter read-only search with no output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description is close to complete: it explains return contents (code, price-from, URL) and the no-results behavior. The one substantive omission is filter-combination semantics (categoria vs seccion vs q), which matters for correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents all five parameters including the enum meanings. The description still adds semantic value by framing `q` as an all-catalog text search that overrides the listing modes and by clarifying the empty-result fallback. It is silent on whether `q`, `categoria` and `seccion` compose or are mutually exclusive, leaving that ambiguity unresolved.

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 resource (a customizable promotional-articles catalog) plus every mode of access: no arguments for categories/sections, `categoria`, `seccion` and `q` for the different listings. An agent can immediately tell this is the discovery/browse tool and distinguish it from calcular_precio and pedir_presupuesto, which are transactional.

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 explicit when-to-use routing for each argument combination, which is exactly what a multi-mode search tool needs ('Sin argumentos devuelve las categorías'; 'con `categoria` lista los productos'; 'con `q` busca por texto en todo el catálogo'). It stops short of naming the sibling tools, so it never says to switch to calcular_precio for pricing or pedir_presupuesto to order — an agent could plausibly try to resolve prices here since 'precio desde' is mentioned.

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