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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds the composition of the result set (products, collections, query suggestions) plus the types/limit filtering behavior, but says nothing about auth needs, rate limits, or whether suggestions are live or cached.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The core purpose and required parameter lead, and the follow-up routing hint is placed after it, so an agent gets the essentials on the first read.

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 explained, and annotations plus a 100%-covered schema carry most of the remaining burden. The description covers purpose, filter knobs, and next-step siblings, though it omits any note on suggestion ranking or when suggestions may be empty.

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 all three parameters -- q, limit (default 10, max 20), and types (allowed values product/collection/query) -- are already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the required q and the filtering/capping effect of types and limit, adding no syntax or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Fetch Brooklinen predictive-search suggestions') and names the sibling marketplace it belongs to (Brooklinen tools). It also distinguishes itself from the browse siblings by naming brooklinen_products and brooklinen_collections explicitly, so an agent can tell it apart without opening any schema.

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 clear downstream routing: 'Use brooklinen_products or brooklinen_collections to browse returned matches,' which tells the agent this tool is for suggestion discovery, not catalog browsing. It stops short of an explicit when-NOT-to-use (e.g. that it is not a full search endpoint), so it is strong context rather than a complete decision rule.

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