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

Annotations already declare the read-only, idempotent, closed-world profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: two distinct data sources and the fact that product_id returns rich detail (description, sellers, subscriptions, treatments, reviews). Pagination behavior is not mentioned, keeping it from 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?

Two sentences with the resource and its scope front-loaded, then the product_id detail mode. Slightly compressed but no wasted clauses.

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-value explanation is not required, and the description still previews the product_id payload. For a 9-parameter, no-required-args search tool it covers modes and scope adequately; only pagination/limits are absent, and those are in the schema.

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 78%, so baseline is 3; the description adds value by explaining that product_id yields a full product record with sellers and related entities, which the schema only summarizes as 'One product with its sellers.' Brand/category/in_stock filtering is confirmed but not elaborated.

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?

Specific verb (search) and resource (skincare/retail products) with scope: GLØDI's marketplace plus individual clinic shops. It also clarifies the dual mode (filter-list vs single product read via product_id). It does not name a sibling tool, so it stops short of 5.

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?

Filtering dimensions (brand, category, stock) are stated, implying when this tool applies, but there is no explicit contrast with search_treatments, get_treatment, or browse_site. The choice between marketplace vs clinic context is left to the schema's clinic_id note rather than the description.

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