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. The description adds that results are the storefront's own native results page (implying ranking is storefront-controlled rather than curated), which is modest but real context. No auth, rate-limit, or result-cardinality behavior is described beyond what the schema's limit note already carries.

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, zero waste. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the routing guidance follows immediately.

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. For a three-parameter search tool with full schema coverage and clear sibling routing, the description supplies everything an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly.

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 q, page, and limit are fully documented in the schema, including the 1-based paging and the 16-per-page grid caveat. The description only echoes the parameter names ('by q', 'page/limit pagination') without adding syntax or constraints of its own, 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?

Specific verb (search) plus resource with scope (Pristine Marketplace's native full-text product results), and it explicitly distinguishes itself from two named siblings. An agent can tell it apart from pristine_marketplace_search_suggest and pristine_marketplace_products 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?

Explicitly states what this tool is not ('results page, not predictive suggestions') and names the exact alternatives with the conditions that select them: typeahead -> search_suggest, full catalog -> products. Nothing is left to inference.

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