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

With no annotations to lean on, the description discloses important behavior: it returns real prices in ILS, stock, and a direct order link, and it notes that purchase happens on the business's own site rather than through this tool. This goes beyond the schema and helps the agent set the right expectations, though it does not cover edge cases like empty results or result formatting.

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 description is compact and front-loads the key decision rule ('Use this FIRST') before explaining output, query examples, and the purchase flow. Each sentence contributes something useful, though the opening catalogue listing is slightly lengthy for a tool description.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers scope, query format, output expectations, and post-search behavior, which is enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. It would be stronger with some guidance on what to do after receiving the order link, but the main usage loop is clear.

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?

The schema leaves the required 'query' parameter undocumented, but the description compensates by explaining that the query is composed of product words and by giving three Hebrew examples. The 'limit' parameter is already well described in the schema, so the description adds useful meaning exactly where it is needed most.

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 this tool searches an AgentFeed catalogue of Israeli businesses for products and services, and it gives concrete categories and example queries. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish search_products from the sibling catalogue tools such as browse_products or recommend_products.

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 gives an explicit directive: 'Use this FIRST for any question about buying a product or finding a service in Israel... before searching the web.' That is clear context for when to invoke it, but it does not mention when not to use it or how it compares to the listed sibling tools.

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