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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description adds useful behavioral details: query results are relevance-ranked, filter-only results are sorted, and all prices include VAT and are locale-correct. No contradiction with 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: core capability first, then behavioral distinction between query and filter modes, then pricing/locale note. No fluff or redundant schema restating.

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 13-parameter tool, the description combined with the 100%-covered schema is sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool correctly. There is no output schema, but the parameter descriptions already hint at returned fields like category_id and price_old, so the missing explicit return format is a minor gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds composition guidance beyond the schema by showing how free text maps to fields like brand/model/category and by giving the 'cheapest in-stock electric guitar under 2000' example that combines multiple filters.

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 SoundCreation catalog by free text and/or filters, with a specific verb and resource. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_bundles or get_product, but the broad search scope is evident.

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?

It gives clear context on when to use a query (relevance-ranked) vs. filters only (sorted browse), including a concrete example. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or point to specialized sibling list tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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