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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description adds material context beyond that: a hard result cap of 20, in-stock-first ordering, the exact returned fields, and IQD currency. It does not mention pagination offsets (none exist) or rate limits, but nothing important about the behavior is hidden.

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, each with a distinct job: what to search on, what comes back, and where to go next. Capability and scope are front-loaded and no sentence is wasted.

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 an 8-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return contract (fields, ordering, cap) and the sibling routing. Everything an agent needs to call it correctly and interpret the result is present.

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?

With 75% schema description coverage, the schema already documents query, brand, category, in_stock_only, and price bounds. The description adds bilingual query examples and confirms IQD units, but leaves the sort enum and limit semantics unmentioned, so it largely restates structured data. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (search) against a named resource (the live Baqer Store product catalog) and enumerates the searchable dimensions: Arabic/English text, category, brand, and IQD price range. It also distinguishes itself from get_product and search_vip_numbers, so an agent can select it without opening sibling schemas.

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 routes to alternatives: 'Use get_product for full details and order_link to order' and 'For VIP phone numbers use search_vip_numbers.' It gives clear when-to-use context but omits the discovery siblings list_brands and list_categories, which the schema references for valid brand/category values.

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