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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: the storefront URL is fixed server-side and empty result pages return 200 with an empty products array, which helps the agent avoid treating empty results as errors.

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?

Purpose and the routing hint are front-loaded, which is good, but the sentence restating 'limit' and 'page' semantics duplicates the input schema verbatim and does not earn its place.

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 the safety profile and an output schema present, return-value description is unnecessary. The description covers the key edge case (empty pages) and caching/URL stability, leaving little missing for a simple paginated list 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 both parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description merely restates the same defaults and the 250 maximum, adding no syntax or semantic meaning beyond the structured data.

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 ('Returns normalized products from Rebag's public product catalog') and explicitly routes searching to a sibling. It does not fully disambiguate from other Rebag product-oriented siblings like rebag_product or rebag_collection_products, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 a clear directive: 'Use rebag_search to search Rebag products,' which names the alternative for the search use case. It states no explicit when-not conditions (e.g., vs. collection-scoped product listing), so it is clear context but not full routing guidance.

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