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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it discloses the normalized fields returned, that an IKEA item number resolves to its own single result, and that a zero total with an empty products list is a valid no-results response 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 purpose before the edge cases, and every sentence carries information. Slight redundancy in enumerating return fields that an output schema already defines keeps it from a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail need not be re-explained. The description covers the required query, the item-number case, and no-results semantics, leaving little an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description earns an extra point by adding meaning the schema lacks: q not only takes free text but also accepts an IKEA item number, which resolves to a single result — a non-obvious semantic the schema's 'Free-text product search query' does not convey.

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 (IKEA products) plus the shape of the returned data, so an agent knows exactly what this tool produces. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like ikea_product (detail) or ikea_suggest (autocomplete), leaving that routing to inference.

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 usage ('q is a free-text query') and notes a useful edge case (item numbers resolve as a single result), but never states when to prefer this over ikea_product or ikea_suggest. Usage context is implied rather than prescribed.

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