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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety and mutability profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: typo tolerance and the result ordering rule (relevance, then cheapest normalized unit price), which are not inferable from annotations or schema.

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 no filler. The action and scope are front-loaded, followed by behavioral details and a sibling alternative. Every sentence earns 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?

Given the rich schema and annotations, the description provides the key decision-making context: matching behavior, ordering, and alternative routing. No output schema exists, so return details are not required. Minor omissions like pagination are not critical for this 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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining result ordering and typo tolerance, which clarifies how query and max_unit_price_cents affect outputs. This goes beyond the parameter descriptions alone.

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 action ('Search'), resource ('whole supplement catalog'), and search dimensions ('product name or brand'). It also distinguishes itself by naming the sibling find_cheapest, making the tool's scope clear.

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 says to use find_cheapest instead when the category is already known, giving an actionable routing rule. The search-by-name-or-brand context is also clear, so an agent knows when this tool is the right choice.

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