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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds the 50-per-page cap and the explicit statement that product and deal-line management is out of scope for this tool. It does not describe ordering or what happens when no match is found, keeping it short of a 5.

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 tight clauses: what is returned, how to filter and page, and the read-only boundary. The page-size limit is stated twice across description and schema, a minor redundancy, but nothing is wasted and the important scoping statement comes last for emphasis.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, and it covers filtering, paging and the read-only boundary for a simple three-optional-parameter list tool. Ordering of results and behavior on an empty result set are the only unstated details an agent might want.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description restates that the search term applies to name or code and that the page size caps at 50, matching the schema rather than adding new meaning such as matching behavior or paging limits beyond the cap.

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 names the resource precisely (active products and services from the price catalog) and enumerates the fields returned (name, code, unit, price excl. VAT, VAT rate). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling set, which contains no other product tool, but it never states a verb such as 'list' or 'search', leaving the operation implicit.

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 gives a clear use context (look up catalog products by name or code) and an explicit when-not-to-use: managing products and deal lines happens in Ragently, not here. It does not route the agent between this tool and generic search siblings like crm_zoek or search, which is a remaining gap.

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