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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive safety, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'verified local' and 'without inventing identities' assure the agent that results are grounded and won't be fabricated. No contradiction with 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes a distinct piece of meaning—scope, data quality, and behavior—making it appropriately concise and well structured.

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 simple two-param search tool with a full output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the essential scope and truthfulness guarantee. Minor gaps: no explicit query syntax and no cue to pair it with get_product/product details, but those do not block correct invocation.

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 undocumented parameters. It implies query targets a product/part-type index, but does not explain query format, accepted values, or the limit parameter at all. This leaves the agent with minimal guidance on how to formulate the input.

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 ('Searches') and resource ('verified local product and part-type index'), with a distinctive qualifier ('without inventing identities') that separates it from a generic search or a retrieval tool like get_product. An agent can immediately tell what it does and how it differs from hallucination-prone search.

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 description implies this is the tool for finding parts by query against a local index, but it never explicitly positions it against siblings such as get_product, get_cocompatibility, or resolve_problem. Without exclusions or alternatives, usage is inferred rather than stated.

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