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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: results are capped at 20 and restricted to products 'that can be ordered now' (an availability filter), which the agent could not infer from the schema or annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, with the query hints and return behavior following. No filler or redundancy.

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 read-only, no-output-schema tool the description covers what is returned and how to query. It omits any explanation of the 'limit' parameter and gives no sense of result ordering or how to retrieve beyond the top 20, leaving minor gaps.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does add value for 'query' by explaining accepted inputs and giving examples, but 'limit' is never mentioned; the 'up to 20 products' phrase only loosely hints at its ceiling. Partial compensation for a 2-param tool.

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 ('Find products') plus the searchable dimensions (name, model, type). It implicitly separates itself from the single-item sibling get_product, but never names it or otherwise explicitly distinguishes the search tool from its retrieval siblings.

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?

Provides practical query guidance (Lithuanian or model names work best, with concrete examples), which is useful implied usage context. However, it never states when to reach for this tool over alternatives like get_product, get_availability, or get_size_guide, so routing 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.