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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, lowering the burden. The description still adds genuinely useful behavior: the empty-result-not-fallback semantics for obscure keywords and the fact that pagination is page-based and 'real', which helps an agent interpret sparse results.

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 core verb+resource and return shape, then the behavioral caveat. Slightly dense but every sentence carries information; no obvious 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 need not be spelled out, and the readOnly annotation covers safety. The description still supplies the pagination model and empty-result behavior, leaving only minor gaps around page_size semantics.

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 compensate. It clarifies query is free-text and that pagination is page-based, but leaves page_size and the page numbering convention undefined, so it only partially fills the gap.

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 H&M product listings by free-text keyword') and enumerates what is returned. It distinguishes itself from category browsing, though it describes that path rather than naming the hm_categories sibling directly, so it falls just short of the strongest sibling differentiation.

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 a clear usage context: free-text keyword search, contrasted with category browsing, which routes the agent appropriately. It stops short of explicitly naming alternative tools (e.g., hm_search_suggestions for autocomplete) or stating exclusions.

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