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 fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: no note on result ordering, whether matches are fuzzy or exact, behavior on zero results, or that q must be at least 2 chars (that lives only in the schema).

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero redundant or filler wording. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 simple read-only search with three fully documented parameters and no output schema, the definition is adequate but thin. It does not indicate what a result record contains (e.g., product name, NIE, registrant) or how to follow up with bpom_get for detail, which would help an agent chain calls correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds modest value by naming the kinds of fields the keyword matches (name, brand, NIE, ingredients), which the schema's bare 'Search keyword' does not convey, but it says nothing about limit/offset or match semantics.

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?

A specific verb ('Search') plus resource ('BPOM registered products') plus the fields searched ('name, brand, NIE, or ingredients') makes the tool's function unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling bpom_get (detail-by-identifier), but the search-vs-get split is inferable from the naming.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the entry point when it has a keyword rather than an exact identifier, and that bpom_get is the follow-up for full detail. No explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative is stated.

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