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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds the return shape and the id-plus-fetch workflow, but since an output schema exists the field list is partly redundant. It says nothing about result limits, ranking, or empty-result behaviour.

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 sentences with no filler; purpose and return shape are front-loaded and the next-step guidance follows. Every sentence carries information and nothing is repeated.

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 annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return values, the description is close to sufficient, but it omits any contrast with the similarly named sibling search_offers. For a catalogue search tool that omission is the one thing an agent would most want resolved.

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?

There is a single parameter ('query') whose schema description is just 'Search query', so schema coverage is nominally 100% but the coverage adds little. The description mentions no matching semantics, tokenisation, or the 200-character cap, leaving semantics entirely to the schema. Baseline 3 applies for a one-parameter tool with full coverage.

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?

It gives a specific verb and resource ('Search the akay.ie trade catalogue') and states what comes back (offer ids, titles, URLs), which is concrete rather than tautological. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling search_offers, so an agent facing both tools gets no disambiguation.

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 sentence 'Use fetch with an id for full details' names an alternative tool and the condition that selects it, which is genuine routing guidance. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over search_offers or what query formulations work, so an exclusion rule is absent.

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