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

Reads past the annotations (readOnly/openWorld) with genuinely useful behavior: unmatched queries return total 0 and an empty list, Hermès' own fallback recommendations are deliberately suppressed, results_for reports Hermès' spelling correction, and pagination beyond page 1 is best-effort/provisional. These are exactly the quirks an agent must know.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then four tight sentences covering result shape, no-results semantics, spelling correction, and pagination reliability. Dense but each sentence carries information; minor overlap with the schema on page size.

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, the description only needs to cover interpretation, and it does: result-shape parity, empty-result semantics, the results_for correction field, and pagination trustworthiness. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this tool is missing.

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 query/locale/page are already documented. The description's page-size and page-1-validation notes largely duplicate the parameter descriptions, adding no new syntax or format semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Search the Hermès catalogue by keyword') and ties the result shape to the sibling hermes_category, so an agent can place it against hermes_products/hermes_category/hermes_suggest without opening schemas. No tautology or ambiguity.

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?

The description implies keyword-search usage and notes the shape parity with hermes_category, but never explicitly says when to prefer this over hermes_products, hermes_category, or hermes_suggest. Usage is inferable from the verb rather than stated, so it sits at minimum-viable.

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