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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only hints that results surface price-related details such as what the item is and what is included, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what fields are returned, how matching behaves, or any limitations.

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 short and front-loaded, with no filler. The first phrase signals domain and scope, and the second phrase gives basic input guidance. However, the cryptic style reduces clarity even though the structure itself is efficient.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and no usage guidance, this description is too thin to fully support correct tool selection and invocation. It works for a very simple read-only search, but it does not distinguish sku_search from many similar search siblings or explain what the returned price information looks like.

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 only defines q as an optional string with no further explanation. The description adds some meaning by stating that q accepts free text or code, which is useful but still vague; there are no examples, format expectations, or clarification of what kinds of codes are valid.

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 communicates that the tool is about prices and accepts free text or code, but it never explicitly states the action or resource. The verb search is only implied by the tool name, and the tagline-style phrasing leaves room for ambiguity about whether this returns price lists, cost breakdowns, or records.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use sku_search versus sku_get or the many other sibling search tools. The description does not name alternatives, exclusion conditions, or suggested workflows, so an agent must infer usage context from the tool name and vague price phrasing.

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