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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavior: facets carry live per-option result counts, offset paginates in fixed increments of 20, and a no-match query returns a well-formed empty result rather than an error. That no-error behavior is genuinely useful and not derivable from annotations.

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, all front-loaded with the core purpose first, then return content, then parameter mechanics, then edge-case behavior. Dense but each sentence carries information; only the offset increment restates schema content.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers the facets feedback loop, pagination granularity, sorting, and the empty-result edge case. It is nearly complete for a search tool, though it omits any routing guidance relative to sibling tools.

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, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: facets values must be drawn from this same response's own facets field, and sort is framed as selecting result order. The offset increment detail is repeated from the schema, but the facets provenance is real added value.

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) plus resource (Burberry's product catalog) and scope (by keyword), and clarifies what comes back: normalized product summaries plus facets. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like burberry_product, burberry_category, and burberry_suggest.

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 explains the facets roundtrip workflow (take property:value lists from this same response) and pagination increments, which is procedural guidance, but it never states when to choose this over siblings such as burberry_suggest or burberry_category. Usage is implied rather than explicitly contrasted.

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