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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses non-obvious behavior: dependence on Best Buy's official Products API, the specific return fields, and two operational error states ('not_found' and 'credentials_required') with context on when they occur. This adds significant transparency.

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 sentences cover purpose, return data, and error behavior. Each sentence earns its place, though the last sentence about deployment status is slightly verbose. Overall well-structured and front-loaded with purpose.

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?

Given no output schema, the description compensates by listing return fields. It also covers error scenarios and API source. It doesn't mention rate limits or pagination behavior, but these are partially addressed in the schema. Overall complete for a search tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no substantive parameter details beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'keyword and/or category' mirrors the 'q' and 'category' descriptions).

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Search Best Buy's US product catalog by keyword and/or category.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings like get_bestbuy_product and other retailer-specific search tools, providing clear scope.

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 conveys when to use the tool (for searching by keyword and/or category) and implies 'get_bestbuy_product' is for direct product retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or provide 'when not to use' scenarios, so it misses the top criterion.

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