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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the tool only returns a direct link, and the actual purchase occurs externally—preventing an agent from mistakenly trying to order through this tool. It does not state read-only semantics or error behavior, but the explicit external-purchase disclosure is substantial added value.

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 two tight, front-loaded sentences: what the tool does, what it returns, and the critical instruction for the agent. No filler, no repetition of schema details, and every sentence earns its place.

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 covers the essential return fields (id, title, price, availability, direct link) and the external-purchase behavior, giving an agent enough to invoke and use the tool correctly. Minor gaps remain—query-matching semantics, pagination, and error handling—but they are not critical for a simple catalog search.

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 only 50%: 'limit' has a schema description, but 'query' does not. The description merely restates 'Search this store's catalog' without explaining what a valid query is (e.g., product name, keyword, SKU) or how matching works. Since query is required and undocumented in both schema and description, this is a significant gap.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search this store's catalog.' It then states exactly what the tool returns (id, title, price, availability, direct link), which distinguishes it from siblings like browse_products (browsing vs. searching), get_product (single product retrieval), and start_order (purchase). The external-purchase note further clarifies this tool's role in the catalog-to-purchase flow.

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 clear context and an actionable directive: 'send the buyer to the link' because purchase happens on the store's own site. This tells the agent when and how to use the tool's output. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like browse_products or recommend_products, so it falls short of a full when/when-not statement.

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