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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context: prices must come from the current merchant catalog in RUB and must not be invented or overridden, and similar items may be suggested but substitution requires user confirmation. These details go beyond the annotations and inform the agent of important constraints.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence earns its place: the first states the action and filters, the second sets price authority, the third covers suggestion behavior and user confirmation. No fluff or repetition.

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 search tool with 11 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers key behaviors but omits details like pagination (page, limit), sorting (sort), and the fixed country (RU). It also doesn't explain what an 'approved goal' is or how to use region_id. The tool's complexity is moderate, and the description is adequate but leaves gaps in parameter usage and response format.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It lists the main filter dimensions (text, brand, form, price, optional approved goal) which map to query, brand, form, min_price/max_price, and goal_code. However, it does not explain page, sort, limit, country, or region_id, nor does it clarify how 'price' is applied (range vs exact). It adds some meaning beyond the schema (e.g., price authenticity) but is not comprehensive for all 11 parameters.

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 states a clear verb ('Search') and resource ('available products') with specific filter dimensions (text, brand, form, price, optional approved goal). It distinguishes itself from siblings like product_analogs (which finds alternatives) and product_details (which retrieves details) by focusing on search. The mention of suggesting similar items for unavailable names also hints at its scope, but the primary purpose is unambiguous.

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 description gives clear context on when the tool is used (searching products) and includes a behavior about not substituting without user confirmation. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like product_analogs, which might also handle similar item suggestions. There are no explicit exclusions or conditions for when not to use this tool, leaving some ambiguity for an agent choosing among siblings.

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