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

Discloses the dual search strategy: FTS index first, then ILIKE fallback. With no annotations, this provides useful behavioral context. Does not mention auth or rate limits, but adequate for a read-only search.

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?

Two short paragraphs, no redundant text. The first sentence immediately states the purpose. Technical details are in a separate paragraph. Every sentence contributes.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not detail return values. It covers the main behavioral aspect (search strategy). Could mention ordering or further filtering, but overall sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 already covers all 3 parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining how the query parameter uses FTS and ILIKE. This goes beyond the schema's brief description, justifying a score above baseline 3.

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?

Clearly states the tool searches a product database using natural-language query, benefit keyword, ingredient, or brand name. It differentiates from siblings like search_by_ingredient and get_supplements_by_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?

Does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_ingredient_info or search_by_ingredient. The description implies a general search function but lacks usage context or exclusions.

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