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

Annotations already declare a safe read-only, closed-world operation, and the description adds substantial business context beyond them: the art is fixed, an optional name costs $3 once per name and cup colour, there is no art fee, and shipping takes 5 business days. It does not discuss result ordering, keyword-matching strictness, or result-count 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?

The definition leads with what is searched and what is returned, then moves to pricing/fulfillment caveats and the recommended next action. A few clauses verge on marketing copy ('No art fee; ships in 5 business days') but they carry decision-relevant information for the agent, so little is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description correctly compensates by listing the returned fields (title, url, price per cup, image, short description) and adds pricing and fulfillment caveats an agent would otherwise lack. Only minor gaps remain, such as result ordering and empty-result behavior.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including examples for query. The description only adds 'matching the words given', which reinforces keyword matching, and says nothing about the limit parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific resource (Karved's own ready-made cup designs), enumerates the categories covered (gifts, hobbies, jobs, holidays, full wraps), and states the matching behavior. Combined with 'ready-made', an agent can distinguish this from creation-oriented siblings like create_design without further reading.

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 implied rather than stated: it is a search for customers wanting an existing design, and the closing instruction 'Send the customer the url to buy' tells the agent what to do with results. However, no alternative is named and there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g. that custom artwork should go to create_design or a quote tool).

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