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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior: the guarantee that a candidate is never presented as an identified product without evidence. This is valuable context 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 a single sentence with a semicolon, front-loading the core action and then qualifying the result semantics. There is no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately concise, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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 read-only, idempotent search with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and a key behavioral constraint. However, it does not address when to prefer this over search_parts or how limit behaves. Given the sibling context, this is a moderate gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It mentions 'Searches' which loosely implies the query parameter, but it does not describe the limit parameter or any query formatting constraints. This is minimal compensation at best.

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 and resource: 'Searches the verified local index for candidates.' It clarifies the result type by noting that a candidate is never presented as an identified product without evidence. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling search_parts, but the candidate concept provides reasonable differentiation.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_parts or get_product. The description implies use for candidate discovery but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or a decision rule. An agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling list.

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