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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive), and the description adds real behavior beyond that: Russian word-form and marketplace-term normalization, AND semantics ('all words must match'), and the fallback path that returns category cases with fallback=true. It does not discuss result size or how fallback results differ beyond the flag.

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?

Four tight sentences with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and each following sentence adds actionable behavior. It is dense but every clause carries information.

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?

With a full output schema, 100% parameter coverage, and safety annotations, the description only needs to cover matching logic and edge cases, which it does: fallback behavior, AND-matching, and how to interpret an empty result. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this tool is missing.

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% with enums and defaults already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description earns an increment by explaining the matching semantics of 'query' (language forms, marketplace terms, all-words-must-match) and the conditional behavior tied to 'category', which the schema alone does not convey.

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: finding documented product-shooting cases filtered by category, method and words. The scope is clear and distinct from a fit-checking or brief-drafting tool, but it never names or contrasts with the sibling tools (e.g. check_shooting_fit), so the agent gets no explicit routing signal.

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?

Usage context is implied (search the portfolio of documented cases) rather than stated, and no alternative tool is named for when this search fails or when a fit check is the real need. The note that a miss does not prove lack of experience is decision-relevant, but it is interpretive rather than a when-to-use rule.

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