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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world). The description adds useful context: what fields are returned and that prices are SEK incl. VAT, which no structured field provides. It does not mention ranking, fuzzy matching, or empty-result behavior.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the return payload. No filler or redundancy.

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 search tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description is adequate but leaves the primary routing question unanswered: when to pick this over search_products or get_spare_part. Adding one comparative sentence would complete it.

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 all four params are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., query syntax, manufacturer matching behavior), so it stays at the 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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (spare-parts catalog) and names the manufacturers. It distinguishes itself from generic siblings like search_products by scope (spare parts) but doesn't explicitly contrast with get_spare_part or get_parts_for_model.

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 on when to use this vs alternatives like get_spare_part (single lookup) or get_parts_for_model (by model). The agent must infer from names alone. Present but entirely implicit.

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