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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context: daily data refresh, sorting from cheapest to most expensive, and return of lowest price plus typical price band (p25–median–p75), which goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 dense but organized, front-loading what the tool does before giving category and output detail. Every clause adds useful information, though the long list of examples makes it slightly heavier than strictly necessary.

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 search tool with six optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the search scope, sort order, and return content well. It does not document pagination or the brand/limit behavior, but these are minor given the simple parameter semantics and annotations.

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 67%, so the description carries extra weight. It enriches the meaning of the text/vertical parameters by enumerating categories and retrieval details, and clarifies price-related output semantics. Brand and limit remain lightly described, but those are easily inferable from their names.

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+resource: a unified search across Uruguayan product directories, with concrete verticals (phones, chairs, home, e-mobility) and output fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_used_cars and search_rentals.

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 context is clear: use for product price searches across listed directories. However, it never explicitly tells the agent when not to use it or names an alternative tool, so selection guidance relies on inference from the tool's domain rather than explicit routing.

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