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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the return payload: price in SEK incl. VAT, stock/availability, identifiers, image and a direct product URL.

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 compact sentences with no filler: the first establishes scope, the second front-loads the return fields an agent cares about. Nothing is redundant.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, which is the main gap it needed to fill. It stops short of covering pagination or default result-count behavior, a minor omission for a search tool.

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%, so the schema already documents query, brand, limit and agent_id. The description adds no per-parameter meaning (e.g. which identifiers the query accepts or how agent_id is used), so the baseline of 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 and resource ('Search Energirör's webshop for VVS products, heat pumps and accessories') and names the domain scope. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling search_spare_parts, so an agent must infer the split between general products and spare parts.

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 phrase 'suitable for shopping agents' implies a usage context, and the return-contents list hints at when this tool is the right pick. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance and no exclusions relative to get_product or search_spare_parts.

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