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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: discloses language handling, return facets, the non-filterability of colour temperature (with reasoning), the split of excluded-reason reporting, and the interpretation caveat about missing products. This is rich behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: core function, language support, return shape, a critical caveat, and an interpretation rule. It front-loads the purpose and progressively adds operational detail, with no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 10-parameter, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, the description is thorough: it explains what the response contains (normalized facets, matched-on query), how exclusions are reported, and how to interpret absence. Pagination is covered by the schema's nextOffset reference, and remaining parameter semantics are fully documented in the schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context about colour temperature being returned but not filterable, and explains that q matches on query text, but it does not deepen meaning of individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Search'), resource ('the catalog of real products stocked by the suppliers on file'), and language support. It clearly differentiates from siblings by directing the 'does a supplier make it?' question to get_brand, so an agent knows this tool searches products rather than brand capabilities.

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?

Gives explicit when-not guidance: a product missing from results is NOT evidence a supplier does not make it, and tells the agent to use get_brand's doesNotDo instead. It also indicates accepted input languages. This routes the agent to the correct sibling for a specific scenario.

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