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

Annotations already cover the read-only, closed-world safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral value by stating the response contains a 'live lowest price' and a count of tracked retailers per product, which tells the agent about data freshness and result shape.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what is searched and immediately followed by what is returned. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 correctly fills the gap by describing the return payload (lowest price, retailer count). Combined with full schema coverage for inputs, the agent has what it needs, though sorting behavior and the brand/limit interaction are left implicit.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by giving concrete query examples ('samba og', 'HQ9438') that illustrate the accepted input formats for the required parameter. The brand and limit parameters get no additional narrative, keeping it from a 5.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('the catalogue') and enumerates the queryable fields (model name, colorway, style code). It also previews the return payload, which implicitly separates it from siblings like cheapest_for_size and where_to_buy, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling tools that handle size-specific pricing or retailer lookup. The examples clarify query format but not when this tool is the right choice over its alternatives.

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