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

Annotations cover the read-only, open-world safety profile, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it discloses the return shape (normalized products, facets with live per-option counts) and the AND/OR combination semantics of filter. It stops short of covering pagination behavior even though offset exists.

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 search action and result shape, with filter guidance last. It is dense but purposeful; the filter sentence partially duplicates schema detail, which 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 values need not be re-explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description supplies the result shape and filter semantics an agent needs to call the tool correctly; only sibling routing and pagination are left implicit.

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 the schema already documents q, sort, limit, filter (including the facets[].id + values[].value pattern and the '|' OR syntax), and offset. The description's filter sentence largely restates what the schema already provides, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb (Search) and resource (Moncler's product catalog) with an explicit keyword qualifier, and it enumerates what a result contains. It does not name or differentiate itself from the sibling moncler_suggest, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives concrete guidance on the filter parameter's usage (pair a prior response's facets[].id with values[].value), which is genuinely useful. However, it never says when to use this tool instead of moncler_suggest, moncler_category, or moncler_product, so overall routing guidance is only implied.

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