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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral constraint ('published' only), but says nothing about result ordering, pagination, or what happens when no match is found.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the resource and matching fields front-loaded and no filler. It is terse to the point of omitting usage and limit information, but nothing written is wasted.

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 4-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose but omits the type filter semantics, limit/pagination behavior, and return shape. It is minimally adequate but leaves real 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 coverage is 50%: type and category are documented in the schema, while query and limit are not. The phrase 'by name, tagline, or maker' usefully expands what the required query matches, compensating partially for the bare schema, but limit is never explained in either place.

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?

Clear verb (search) plus resources (published products and agent skills) and the searchable fields (name, tagline, maker). It distinguishes itself from get_product and list_categories, though the title 'Search tools' is inconsistent with the product/skill domain.

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 statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as list_categories for browsing or get_product for a known item. The category param's schema text gestures at list_categories, but the description itself offers no routing guidance.

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