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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses that ranking is typo-tolerant and not an exact match, and that zero matches return a well-formed empty result rather than an error. That is genuinely useful behavioral context not captured by structured fields.

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?

Four sentences, each front-loaded with a distinct fact (purpose, required/optional params, ranking behavior, empty-result behavior). No filler or repetition.

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 explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers behavior, required param, and error semantics. It falls short only on documenting the page/limit pagination parameters.

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% across 5 params. The description confirms q is required and that gender and sort accept the same values as prada_category, but says nothing about page or limit, leaving two parameters undocumented by both schema and description.

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 (Prada's product catalog) plus the mechanism (its own public search index). It distinguishes itself from the sibling prada_category by explicitly referencing that tool when describing shared optional values.

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 implies the tool is for free-text keyword discovery (typo-tolerant relevance ranking) versus category browsing, but never states when to prefer it over prada_category, prada_suggest, or prada_product. 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.