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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the safety burden is met. The description adds genuinely valuable context that annotations cannot: the 1,100+ corpus size and the shape of what comes back (tasting profiles, brew methods, retailer names with prices, no purchase links).

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 tight sentences: what it searches, how to filter, what comes back. The scope and filter list are front-loaded and nothing is padded.

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 usefully compensates by describing the return payload, and the filter dimensions are covered. It stops short of explaining result ordering or how the 10-item limit interacts with broad queries, which is a minor gap 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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented with types, enums, and bounds. The description restates category options and USD pricing without adding syntax, ranking, or defaulting behavior beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search 1,100+ curated specialty coffees in the Percolate database') and enumerates the filterable facets. It is clearly distinct from get_coffee or compare_coffees by virtue of being a catalog search, though it never explicitly names a sibling to route against.

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 only implied: the description tells you what can be filtered but not when to choose this over find_similar, get_recommendations, or trending_coffees. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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