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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: results are purely cosmetic ('nothing earns or saves time'), and it describes what each result carries (id, price in glow, ownership/wish status with a key).

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?

Front-loads the search purpose and content scope in the first sentence, then adds result shape and sibling routing. Mostly efficient, though the long enumeration of shelf contents is slightly list-heavy.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully describes the return fields (id, price, ownership/wish status). Safety is covered by annotations. It is essentially complete for a read-only search tool, with only minor gaps around result ordering or limits.

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 q, key, shelf, and max_glow are all already documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'with your key' and 'price in glow' loosely reinforces the key and max_glow parameters but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (Search) and resource (the shop's shelves/catalog), then enumerates the content types found there. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like wish, wishlist, and ask_human, which it explicitly names as separate actions.

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?

The closing clause routes the agent to alternatives for adjacent actions: 'wish adds one to your wishlist; ask_human asks for it.' This clarifies that searching is not the way to add or request items. It stops short of an explicit when-to-use-this framing, but the implied context is clear.

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