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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description only needs to add behavior beyond that. It does: the default-active filtering behavior and, importantly, that an empty list means no matching callable tools rather than an error. It omits return shape and any pagination/limit 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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the search purpose and the default filter come first. Slightly terse rather than padded, though the second and third sentences could be merged without loss.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema list tool with strong annotations, the description covers purpose, default scoping, and empty-result semantics. It does not explain what each returned tool entry contains or the meaning of the 'validation' status, minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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%, so the description must carry the params. It explains q as 'problem keywords' and covers status's default and the retired/all use case, but leaves the 'validation' enum value and q's 120-char limit unexplained, so compensation is only partial.

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 gives a concrete verb+resource: keyword search over the tool catalog, with a default filter to active items. It is clearly distinct from get_product (single item) and invoke_product (execution), though it never names those siblings to reinforce the boundary.

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?

'Default active only' and 'status retired/all is for history' imply when to widen the status filter, which is useful. However there is no explicit guidance on when to choose list_products versus get_product or invoke_product, so routing is left to inference.

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