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

Annotations already cover read-only/open-world, so credit goes to the added context: the description discloses the page size cap (24, or 12 on a category page) and, importantly, that an unrecognized/blocked query returns an upstream error rather than an empty result. These are genuine behavioral facts not derivable from annotations, though auth/rate-limit behavior is not covered.

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 core action, then return shape, then edge behavior. Every sentence carries weight and nothing is padded.

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 spelled out, yet the description helpfully summarizes them anyway and covers pagination size and error behavior. For a simple 2-parameter search tool this is effectively complete; only explicit sibling routing is missing.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description restates 'q is free-text search keywords; page is a 1-indexed page number (default 1)', essentially mirroring the schema without adding format or constraint detail beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Home Depot products) scoped by keyword, and enumerates the returned fields. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like homedepot_product or homedepot_category without opening the 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?

The description implies keyword-search usage but never states when to use this versus homedepot_product, homedepot_category, or homedepot_suggest. No exclusions or alternative-routing guidance is provided, leaving selection between the many homedepot_* siblings to inference.

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