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 and the description only needs to add behavioral detail. It does add the 20-hit page cap and that results carry a relevance score, but it never explains how fuzzy matching behaves (typos, partial words, ranking) or whether results are account-scoped.

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?

One compact sentence plus a bare endpoint path; the core capability and the page-size constraint are front-loaded with no padding. The trailing URL is of marginal value to an agent compared with what could have occupied that space, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing what comes back, and it only mentions hits and a relevance score without saying what a hit contains. For a low-complexity search with fully documented params this is adequate but leaves the return shape underspecified.

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%, with limit, query, offset and sellable all documented in the schema including bounds. The description adds only that matching is against name and description, which is a small increment over the schema baseline.

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 ('fuzzy search products by name and description') plus the underlying endpoint, which is enough to tell it apart from a plain listing tool. It never names the sibling it differs from (tillhub_list_products), so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 word 'fuzzy' implies an exploratory text-search use case versus enumerating products, so the intended situation is inferrable. But there is no explicit 'use this when you have partial text, use tillhub_list_products when browsing' guidance or any exclusions.

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