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 behavioral context beyond the annotations: the condition grade and colour are 'best-effort' and derived from catalog tags, warning the agent that these fields are approximate.

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?

A single compact sentence with the core purpose front-loaded. The parenthetical about the pinned domain is a minor aside but adds grounding, so nothing is wasted.

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?

For a read-only search with a full schema and an output schema, the definition covers purpose and the data-quality caveat. Only the missing when-to-use routing against sibling search/browse tools keeps it from being fully complete.

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% with all four parameters (q, page, sort, limit) documented in the schema itself. The description adds no query syntax, matching behavior, or sort/limit detail beyond what the schema provides, so 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 and resource ('Rebag full-text product search') and adds what results contain (condition grade and colour). It is clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like rebag_search_suggest or rebag_products.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. 'Full-text product search' implies keyword search but does not tell the agent when to prefer this over rebag_search_suggest, rebag_products, or rebag_collection_products.

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