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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful epistemic caveat — that catalogue links signal published pages only and compatibility rests on structured facts — but says nothing about how results are ordered, paginated, or what a result entry contains.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the purpose comes first and the alternative routing last. The middle clause is compressed to the point of jargon ('only structured facts support compatibility') but it is load-bearing rather than redundant.

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 seven-parameter tool with nested filter objects, no output schema and zero schema-level parameter descriptions, three sentences are not enough — an agent cannot tell what sort/filters/currency semantics mean or what a returned hit looks like. Only the read-only safety profile is adequately covered, and that comes from annotations rather than the text.

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 0% across seven parameters, including nested objects for sort and filters (maxMsrp, technical.brand/videoMode/minLengthM/maxLengthM/application, availability), yet the description only hint at the query field via 'task, model or SKU'. Nothing explains the numeric conventions (amountMinor), currency pairing, or what the technical filters constrain, so the description fails to compensate for the absent schema documentation.

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 concrete verb and a set of resources: 'Find published solutions, guides, tools and products' with the search surface named ('for a task, model or SKU'). It explicitly separates itself from get_products, but gives no cue to distinguish it from the sibling search_products or search_product_analogs, which an agent would also plausibly pick for a query.

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?

There is one explicit routing rule ('Use get_products for current terms') and an implicit signal that this tool is for published content rather than live pricing. However, the agent is told nothing about when to prefer search_products or search_product_analogs over this tool, which is the main selection risk given the sibling list.

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