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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint/destructiveHint=false, but the description adds real domain behavior beyond them: tiers (kit vs welded), firm unit price in CAD cents before HST, the orderable gate for quoting, and that freight is quoted separately after the order. Return shape and result limits are not described, which keeps it from 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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then compactly layered with catalog facts in four dense sentences and no filler. Slightly long for a one-parameter search but every clause conveys domain rules an agent would otherwise guess at.

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 read-only search with no output schema, the description supplies the key commercial context (pricing units, tiers, orderable gate, freight follow-up) an agent needs to act on results. It omits return structure, result caps, and pagination, a minor gap for a 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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does: it defines the query as words matched against product name or description and explains the null/default case ('send no query to list them all'). Only the maxLength=80 constraint is left to 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find the pre-designed steel products Steady Steel sells... by words in their name or description'), including the catalog location and the no-query listing behavior. It implicitly separates this catalog lookup from quoting tools, but never names a sibling (e.g., list_materials) to make the boundary explicit.

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?

Gives a clear usage rule for the empty-query case ('send no query to list them all') and frames the downstream workflow ('Only a tier marked orderable can be quoted', freight quoted after order). It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over quote_product or get_quote.

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