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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose genuinely useful matching semantics (all words required, any order, case-insensitive) that the schema does not express. However, it says nothing about pagination behavior, result ordering defaults, or the page_size ceiling, leaving key operational traits undocumented.

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?

A single dense sentence with zero filler, and the scope (which fields match) is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the parenthetical clause is slightly load-bearing for readability.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should do more: it omits pagination/return behavior and how this tool relates to `filter` and `browse` in a crowded 7-tool namespace. It is adequate for a basic keyword search but leaves meaningful gaps.

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 only 25%, so the description needs to compensate; it fully explains the semantics of `query`, which is the important one. The other three parameters (page, page_size, sort) get no added meaning beyond the schema's enum and min/max constraints.

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 (match words) and resource (Dining Co products), and enumerates the searchable fields (title, description, brand, category, attributes), so the agent knows exactly what corpus is being searched. It does not distinguish itself from the overlapping sibling `filter`, so it falls short of a 5.

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 conveys that this is keyword search but offers no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and never names the alternatives (`filter`, `browse`) that a shopping agent would otherwise have to guess between. Usage is only implied.

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