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 that: the endpoint is 'credential-free' and the storefront URL is 'fixed server-side', telling the agent no auth or URL parameters are needed. It stops short of describing response shape, but the output schema covers that.

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?

The first two sentences are front-loaded and information-dense, earning their place. The remaining sentences duplicate the schema verbatim, which is mild padding but not enough to disrupt the structure.

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 annotations covering safety, an output schema covering returns, and full schema description coverage, the description supplies the remaining essentials: the data source, the auth-free nature, and the sibling routing. Nothing critical is missing for a simple 3-parameter read tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The description merely restates the schema's own text for q and limit ('Required. Search query text' / 'Default 10, maximum 20') and omits the types parameter entirely, so it adds no meaning 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 ('Returns') plus the three resource types (products, collections, query suggestions) and pinpoints the exact endpoint ('predictive search Ajax endpoint'). It clearly differentiates from the sibling kyliecosmetics_products, which is named in the description.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to kyliecosmetics_products for listing products, giving a concrete alternative. However, it doesn't say when to prefer suggestions over a full search/listing or what the suggestions are meant to feed, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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