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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: return contents, data freshness, Dutch-language query requirement, per-country connector scope, and source attribution expectations. This is rich behavioral guidance for an agent.

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 description is front-loaded with purpose, examples, and use cases, and most sentences carry actionable information. It is somewhat long because it mixes invocation guidance with answer-formatting rules such as source citation and update frequency, but it remains readable and structured.

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?

Given the rich annotations, one-parameter schema, output schema, and sibling `fetch`, the description is complete enough for correct selection and invocation. It covers scope, query language, country specificity, return content, and when to defer to `fetch`.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the single `query` parameter is thoroughly explained: search by product or brand name, use Dutch words, and translate foreign-language queries to Dutch. The examples make the expected query format clear.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: search for a supermarket product or brand by name, with concrete examples like 'oatly barista' and 'calvé pindakaas'. It also distinguishes the tool from the sibling `fetch` by saying details should be retrieved with `fetch`.

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?

It explicitly names when to use the tool: questions about price, promotions, cheapest supermarket, or availability. It also gives the alternative path for details via `fetch`, plus language and country-specific guidance that directly affects correct invocation.

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