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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: offset paginates in increments of 20, sort controls result order, facets accepts a comma-separated property:value list sourced from the response, and a no-match query returns a well-formed empty result rather than an error.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the pagination/sort mechanics, then the facet contract and empty-result guarantee. Every sentence carries information with no filler.

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 an output schema present, return values needn't be documented, and the description covers the facet round-trip, pagination step, sorting, and empty-result semantics for a 4-parameter tool. It's nearly complete, missing only the accepted sort values and offset bounds.

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 burden and does well: it defines offset (paginates in increments of 20), sort (selects result order), and facets (comma-separated property:value list from the response's facets field). It stops short of giving sort's allowed values or offset's default/limit, so it isn't fully compensating.

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') and resource ('Burberry's product catalog by keyword'), and the return shape (normalized product summaries plus facets). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like burberry_suggest, burberry_category, and burberry_product.

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?

It explains the facet round-trip workflow (facets taken from this same response's facets field), which implies iterative filtering usage, but never states when to prefer this over burberry_suggest or burberry_category. Usage is implied rather than explicit, and no alternatives or exclusions are named.

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