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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load, and it does disclose the matching behavior (all words, any order, case-insensitive) and the searched fields. It says nothing about pagination behavior, default page size, ordering default, or the 50-item cap that the schema imposes, so the behavioral picture is only partial for a read tool.

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 front-loaded sentence that defines the resource, the matching rule, and the searched fields with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

There is no output schema, so the description should ideally say something about what comes back (ranked result list, per-page size), and with no annotations it should say more about the read-only, non-mutating nature and pagination limits. As written it is adequate for a simple search endpoint but leaves result shape and pagination unspecified.

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 25% (only 'sort' is documented), so the description must compensate. It clarifies the semantics of the required 'query' parameter (tokenized, unordered, case-insensitive matching across five fields), which the schema does not, but contributes nothing for page, page_size, or sort.

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 names the concrete operation (full-text match) and enumerates exactly which product fields are searched (title, description, brand, category, attributes), which is far more specific than the bare name 'search'. It does not, however, contrast itself against siblings like filter or browse, so an agent still has to infer which one to pick.

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 is only implied through the matching semantics: keyword-in-any-field searching naturally suggests this is the tool for free-text queries rather than structured narrowing (filter) or top-level navigation (browse, categories). No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative is given.

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