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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the visibility filter ('only published, listed products'), the ranking policy that couples query presence to sort order, and a fixed page size of 24.

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 with zero filler: identity, filter/ranking behaviour, visibility constraint and page size. The most decision-relevant facts (what it searches, how results are ordered) are 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?

For a 10-parameter, zero-required search tool with no output schema, the definition covers filtering, ordering, visibility and pagination — enough for an agent to call it correctly. A brief note on the shape of returned results (fields per product, total count/available pages) would close the remaining gap, since no output schema exists to cover it.

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 70%, and the description meaningfully reinforces the filtering semantics (framework, category, USD price) and the ranking/sort coupling, which matters because the sort enum's behaviour depends on whether query is set. It does not touch locale or buyable_only, leaving those to the schema, which is reasonable given their self-documenting descriptions.

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) plus the exact resource domain (RPScripts catalogue of FiveM scripts, MLOs, server packs, vehicles, assets) and enumerates the filter axes. This is clearly distinguishable from get_product (single item) and list_categories (browsing), which appear as siblings.

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 establishes the retrieval context clearly — ranked by relevance when a query is supplied, by popularity otherwise — and the schema points back to list_categories for valid category paths. It stops short of explicitly saying when to prefer get_product or list_categories, but the surrounding context makes the boundary easy to infer.

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