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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds real value by disclosing the return shape (sku_id, merchant, distance, size, price in integer cents), which tells the agent how to interpret price. However it says nothing about authentication, the default sort, the hard limit of 100 results, or whether lat/lon must be supplied together for geo 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 tight sentences with no filler, and the core search scope is front-loaded ahead of the return-format note. Efficient for the amount of information conveyed.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description correctly takes on the job of describing return fields, which it does. But for a 7-parameter tool with 14% schema coverage and no annotations, leaving sort/limit semantics and geo-search requirements unaddressed leaves clear gaps.

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 only 14%, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It maps to q (item name), category, and the geo cluster (lat/lon/max_miles), but never explains the sort enum, the limit default/maximum, or max_miles units. Two of seven parameters (sort, limit) remain undocumented in both schema and description.

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), resource (SF beverage SKUs), and the two optional dimensions (category, geo). It is clearly distinguishable from get_sku and price_order by the act of searching rather than fetching or ordering. It stops short of naming siblings explicitly, so it falls just below a 5.

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 'with optional category filter and geo search' implies when these inputs apply, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over get_sku or price_order. No prerequisites or exclusions are given. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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