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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields but does not explicitly state the operation is read-only, nor does it mention pagination, limits, or side effects. For a simple search tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy: the first states the action and scope, the second states the output and points to an alternative. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 simple tool (1 param, no output schema), the description explains the key return fields but does not specify the exact response structure (e.g., array vs. object) or pagination. It is reasonably complete for the complexity but could be more explicit.

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?

The input schema already documents the only parameter (query) with a description, and coverage is 100%. The description adds little beyond the schema—it ties the query to the search action but does not introduce new semantics, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Search the shop catalogue'), the resource, and what it returns ('matching products with their slugs, price and stock availability'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get-product by directing agents to that tool for full details, making its scope 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?

It explicitly names an alternative (get-product) and implies when to use each: this tool for search results, get-product for full details and variants. This provides clear usage context, though it does not enumerate other conditions or exclusions, so a slightly lower score is given.

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