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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the default 'include' of StockLevels, the default search fields, and composite/variation parent inclusion defaults. It stops short of describing pagination semantics or result size limits.

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 zero waste: purpose and return contents come first, the empty-keyword browse case second. The trailing endpoint reference is the only arguably optional element and costs almost nothing.

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 7-parameter, no-output-schema search tool, the definition is nearly complete: it covers what is searched, what is returned, and how extraction options alter the payload. The remaining gap is pagination/volume behavior beyond the schema's next_page hint.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, including defaults, ranges, and the next_page paging hint. The description only restates the searchable fields and optional includes, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the structured data; 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 the product catalogue') plus the searchable keys (SKU, title, barcode) and the return payload (items with stock levels per location, optional pricing/suppliers/images/extended properties). An agent can distinguish this from the single-item sibling get_inventory_item and from get_stock_levels 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?

The sentence 'An empty keyword lists items' gives one concrete usage mode (browse all), which is implied guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over siblings like get_inventory_item, get_stock_levels, or list_categories, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites.

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