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

Annotations already declare it read-only, idempotent, and not open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable workflow context by telling the agent the result feeds into get_product via the returned slug, though it doesn't describe pagination or result limits beyond the schema.

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?

Front-loads purpose and return shape in the first sentence, then usage conditions and the follow-up tool. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be detailed, yet the description still names the key fields. Combined with clear usage routing and full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 100% and the parameter descriptions already carry examples and the two-character minimum, so the description mainly restates the searchable fields (nume, brand, tip). It adds little beyond what the schema provides, 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?

Specifies the exact verb (Caută), resource (catalogul tatuat.ro), searchable fields (nume, brand, tip de produs) and what it returns (preț în RON, disponibilitate, link). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_product and browse_category.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it (when the client asks if a product exists, how much it costs, or what options exist) and routes to the alternative: use get_product afterward with the returned slug for a specific product's details.

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