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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is read-only, requires no api_key, and returns a specific set of fields. It also states the tool is not for buying, which is a behavioral boundary. It doesn't mention pagination or error behavior, but for a simple read-only search tool, the disclosed traits are sufficient to set expectations.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return fields, read-only note, and usage routing. The bilingual Vietnamese line at the end is redundant with the English text, which costs a small amount of conciseness, but the overall structure is efficient and scannable.

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 2-parameter read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it searches, what it returns, when to use it, and what to do next. It doesn't explain pagination or the exact format of the price field, but those are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity and the schema's 100% parameter coverage.

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 both parameters (query and limit). The description adds the context that the query is a keyword in the product name and that the search is against the public catalog, which slightly enriches the schema. However, it doesn't add much beyond the schema's own descriptions, so baseline 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('the public catalog'), and a specific scope ('by keyword in the product name'). It also lists the return fields (id, name, price, stock, category, url), which makes the tool's purpose unmistakable. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming what it is not for (browsing, best sellers, latest, full detail).

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 explicitly says WHEN TO USE: when the user already has a search term or product name. It also names alternatives: list_categories + list_category_products for browsing without a keyword, best_sellers for 'popular', latest_products for 'new', get_product for full detail of one id. It even routes to the next step (pass a found id to quote_order). This is exemplary usage guidance.

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