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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive reads, so the safety bar is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: what the response contains (LKR price, stock, link) and the default filter of in-stock items only. It stops short of noting the 20-result cap or ordering/pagination behavior.

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 sentences, no filler, with the scope and searchable facets front-loaded before the return values and stock default. The parenthetical example list is long but each example adds query-phrasing signal rather than padding.

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 correctly takes on the job of stating what comes back (price in LKR, stock, link), and it flags the in-stock default that an agent would otherwise have to dig out of the schema. Minor gaps remain around result limits and how price filters interact with the query, but nothing blocking for a single required string parameter.

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 80%, so most parameters are already documented in structured fields; the description mainly elaborates on what the free-text 'query' can contain, which does add real semantic range beyond 'What the shopper is looking for.' It says nothing about min_price/max_price or limit beyond what the schema already states, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 Seduction.lk ... products') and enumerates the searchable facets (name, brand, ingredient, skin type, concern, plain-language need), which clearly separates it from sibling lookups like get_product or list_brands.

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 concrete query-phrasing guidance with three examples, including natural-language needs, and states the in-stock default with an implicit override ('unless asked otherwise'). It does not explicitly name when to prefer list_categories, list_brands, or get_product instead, so routing against siblings is left to inference.

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