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

With readOnlyHint=true covering the safety profile, the description adds useful behavioral details beyond the annotation: which fields are searched, that results include one-time price, and that an empty query returns the full catalogue. These traits help an agent predict behavior without contradicting the annotation.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the search behavior, the return content, and the empty-query edge case. No filler or redundant restatement.

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 read-only search tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core invocation semantics and key return content. It does not describe pagination or ordering, but these are not essential for correct invocation.

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 q and limit. The description goes further by clarifying what q matches against (name, slug, tagline, description) and explaining the empty-query behavior, adding meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find products') and enumerates the searchable fields (name, slug, tagline, description), making the tool's purpose concrete. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like product, but the search behavior is clear and recognizable.

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 implies when to use it: when searching by words and when wanting the full catalogue via an empty query. It does not mention alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so usage guidance is present but only implied.

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