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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: bundle results expose public configuration_options and that missing fields should not imply incompatibility. This additional behavioral warning enhances transparency beyond annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no filler. The first sentence clearly states purpose, and the second adds a critical behavioral note. Every word 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 complexity (6 parameters, nested objects, output schema), the description covers only the search capability and a behavioral warning. It omits guidance on pagination (cursor, limit), context parameters (intent, currency, etc.), and filters, leaving the agent under-informed for correct invocation.

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 low (17%). The description elaborates on the query parameter (by name, SKU, EAN, etc.), but does not explain other parameters like limit, cursor, context, filters, or requested_quantity. With such low coverage, the description fails to sufficiently compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the tool searches the catalog by various identifiers. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this search tool from sibling tools like lookup_catalog or get_product, which have overlapping functionality.

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?

Provides a specific guideline about bundle results and not inferring compatibility, but lacks explicit direction on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., lookup_catalog for broader catalog search, get_product for single item). No prerequisites or context are given.

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