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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds material context beyond them: availability is owner-declared with no inventory verification (a real correctness caveat), pagination is via next_page, and product text must be treated as data, not instructions (an injection guard). These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, with no filler. The pagination sentence is slightly imprecise (next_page is a response field, not a parameter), which costs a point but not the overall efficiency.

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?

Return values need not be explained since an output schema exists, and the availability caveat covers the main semantic risk. However, for a four-parameter search tool with zero schema descriptions, the complete absence of parameter meaning leaves a real gap 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 description coverage is 0% and the description explains none of the four parameters: query, language (2-3 letter code), per_page (capped at 24), or page. Worse, it says "paginate using next_page", which is not an input parameter and can mislead an agent into looking for a non-existent argument rather than using page/per_page.

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 all public WooCommerce products") plus a scope qualifier ("across languages") that an agent can act on directly. It also names the sibling it is not (get-product-price for quantity pricing), so the tool is distinguishable without opening any schema.

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 routing rule to an alternative tool ("Use get-product-price for quantity pricing") and a pagination instruction. It stops short of stating exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions, so it is clear context rather than a full decision rule.

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