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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the description's real contribution is disclosing the result payload: price, sale price, store, image and a tracked product link, plus the fact that data comes from affiliate feeds. It does not cover auth requirements, rate limits, or result ordering/cap behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler. Capability and scope are front-loaded, and the return-value sentence follows naturally without restating the title or name.

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 9 optional params, no output schema, and moderate schema coverage, the description compensates well by enumerating search modes and listing returned fields. It falls short only on behavior an agent would want before calling — result limit interaction, offer deduplication, or country/price filter interaction.

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 67%, so the schema already documents most inputs (sku, store, countries, onSale, limit). The description's mention of keyword, brand, store, SKU and price filters maps onto those params but adds no syntax, format, or interaction rules beyond what the schema says.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Search millions of products from affiliate feeds') and enumerates the search axes (keyword, brand, store, exact SKU/part number) plus price filters. The resource noun 'products' implicitly separates it from search_coupons and search_stores, but no sibling is named, so routing is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Listing the searchable axes (keyword vs. brand vs. store vs. exact SKU) implies which parameter mode to pick for a given intent. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no pointer to the sibling tools (search_stores, search_coupons, get_store_link) that share this problem space.

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