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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and not open-world. The description adds domain context about partner stores and donation rates, but does not provide operational behavior such as result shape, pagination, auth, or rate limits.

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 two sentences and front-loads the core action. The second sentence is contextual rather than operational, but it earns its place by explaining the donationRate concept referenced in the schema.

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 three-parameter search tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is mostly complete. The main gaps are the lack of explicit alternative-tool routing and return-value expectations, which are less critical but still absent without an output 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents query, limit, and minDonationRate. The description explains what a donation rate means, but it does not add usage semantics for the minDonationRate filter or clarify query/limit behavior beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Search hangel Market products.' It also scopes the catalog as 'millions of items from partner stores,' which distinguishes this tool from generic siblings like search, search_ngos, and search_library.

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 intended use is implied by 'Search hangel Market products,' but the description never explicitly says when to use this instead of the generic search tool or other sibling search tools. No exclusions or alternative-routing guidance are provided.

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