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 non-obvious behavioral context: condition and color are 'best-effort' values derived from catalog tags, warning the agent those fields may be approximate. It does not mention pagination or rate-limit behavior, but that gap is minor given the annotations and the page/limit params.

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 with zero waste: the core search behavior and its facet caveat come first, then the routing to alternatives. Well front-loaded.

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 no explanation, and the annotations cover safety, leaving the description to carry purpose and routing — which it does well. Only pagination/result-window behavior is left implicit, a small gap for a search 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 schema already documents q, page, sort, and limit fully. The description adds no per-parameter syntax or format detail beyond what is structured, so the 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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (Rebag products) with the mechanism (full text), plus a useful nuance that condition/color are best-effort values derived from catalog tags rather than exact filters. It also names the sibling tools it is not (rebag_search_suggest, rebag_products, rebag_collection_products), so an agent can disambiguate 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 routes to alternatives with the condition that selects each: rebag_search_suggest for typeahead, rebag_products and rebag_collection_products for browsing catalog items. This is the precise when-to-use-which guidance that distinguishes a search endpoint from its suggest and browse siblings.

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