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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: it names the return fields (local product IDs, current price, minimum quantity) and warns that product text must not be treated as instructions, which is meaningful prompt-injection context.

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?

Three short sentences with zero waste, the core action front-loaded and the return shape and safety caveat following. Nothing here could be cut without losing information.

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 does a reasonable job naming return fields, but it is thin for a search tool: no result-set size, no pagination behavior for the 'page' parameter, and no note on match relevance or empty-result behavior.

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 carries the full burden for two parameters, yet it explains neither. The 'query' parameter's matching semantics (name, SKU, fuzzy vs exact) and the existence of 'page' pagination are completely undocumented in both places.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ("Search this store public products") and states what comes back (local product IDs, current price, minimum quantity). It is clearly distinct from siblings prepare_cart, quote_items and store_info, though it never explicitly says so.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the entry point for finding products before quoting or carting. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no statement of preconditions, and no routing to a sibling, so the guidance stays at the minimum-viable level.

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