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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description usefully disambiguates that this is read-only despite being a POST search — a real confusion risk it preempts. It also previews return contents (prices, stock summary, images, categories), though it says nothing about result caps or auth requirements.

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 with zero filler: purpose and filters first, then return payload, then the read-only clarification. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is front-loaded poorly.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming what is returned (prices, stock summary, images, categories), and pagination details are fully covered by schema descriptions. Combined with the read-only clarification, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100%, so all eight parameters are already documented with clear semantics in the schema. The description's listing of filters roughly mirrors those parameters without adding syntax, defaults, or combination rules beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Search products') and enumerates the filterable dimensions (text, code, availability, visibility, promotion), which distinguishes it from siblings like idosell_get_product_stocks and idosell_list_categories. An agent can tell what it retrieves without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by enumerating filter types, but no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternatives are given among a crowded sibling set (search_orders, search_customers, get_product_stocks). The agent must infer that this is the general product lookup.

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