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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: results are candidates requiring project-specific confirmation and are explicitly not an engineering calculation, which sets expectations about output reliability.

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 compact clauses – purpose, usage tip, caveat – with no filler and the core action front-loaded. Every sentence carries distinct 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?

For a two-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the parameter workflow, and the nature of the results. It stops short of describing the shape of the returned candidate list, which would be helpful given there is no output schema.

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 50% because the application enum lacks a description, and the description compensates by explaining the omit-to-list-then-select behavior for that parameter. The language parameter's meaning is left entirely to its schema description, which does cover it adequately.

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 specific verb+resource ("Find candidate products") and scopes it to Kariwood published application guidance, which is more specific than a generic search. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like search or list_products, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 concrete operating guidance: omit the application parameter to enumerate supported application IDs, then select one. That is a clear usage path, though it never states when to prefer this tool over search or list_products.

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