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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds value beyond that by stating no money moves and that the call executes as action=commerce.search through the Guardrail, plus the rejection rule for empty inputs. It stops short of describing rate limits or result ordering.

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?

Front-loaded and short, with the core constraint stated early. The bilingual repetition (English then Korean) doubles the text for the same content, which is mildly wasteful, but the whole description is still compact and every sentence carries a rule.

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 an 8-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers the operation, the Guardrail routing, and the key input constraint. It omits any hint of return shape or pagination behavior (cursor is only explained in the schema), which is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a genuine constraint the schema does not express — the schema lists required: [] but the description enforces at-least-one of q or category — which is meaningful semantics beyond the structured fields.

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 ('Search shop products or browse a category') and clarifies the dual mode of operation. An agent can immediately distinguish this from siblings like commerce_build_cart, commerce_checkout, or commerce_order_status without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition: at least one of q or category must be supplied, and category-only browsing is allowed while both-empty is rejected. It does not, however, route the agent toward or away from any sibling tool for adjacent tasks such as building a cart after searching.

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