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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about pagination defaults, result caps, whether offset is 0-based, ordering defaults, or what the response shape is. It only notes jargon-free facts about catalogue size, leaving the agent to guess at runtime 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 compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by a terse parameter enumeration. Efficient, though the param list partially repeats what the schema already exposes by 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?

For a 10-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the definition is thin. Filter semantics, price/firmness units, paging defaults, and return shape are all unaddressed, so an agent cannot confidently construct a query without trial and error.

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% across 10 parameters, so the description must compensate. It enumerates every parameter name and hints at meaning for a few (q is a keyword, sort accepts price_asc|price_desc|name, firmness_min/max are a range), which is more than the bare schema. However it gives no units for prices, no semantics for size or retailer values, and no rationale for the firmness bounds.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Search the CUBBY HOUSE Australian mattress catalogue') and adds scope detail (14 retailers, 139 products) that tells the agent exactly what corpus it queries. The sibling tools (traction, profile matching, lead submission) are clearly different operations, so no ambiguity remains.

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 description never says when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any preconditions, exclusions, or intended workflow position. It is purely a functional statement plus a parameter list.

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