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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that attribute matching is exact and case-insensitive and that price is in the store's currency in major units, but it omits whether the operation is read-only, how pagination behaves, and what the default sort is.

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?

The core filtering semantics are front-loaded in a single dense sentence, and the price example earns its place. The parenthetical 'see any product's attributes' is slightly awkward but functional; little is wasted.

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 10-parameter tool with a nested object, low schema coverage, and no annotations or output schema, the description covers the main filtering path but leaves fulfilment, sorting defaults, and pagination unexplained. Adequate but clearly incomplete given the tool's complexity.

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?

With schema coverage at only 30%, the description compensates by explaining attributes as the store's own specification keys with exact, case-insensitive matching, and by giving a concrete price example (price_min 200, price_max 1500). It still says nothing about 'fulfilment' (own vs affiliate) or pagination/sort behavior, so several of the 10 parameters remain unclarified.

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 resource and operation: products of Media Depot matched by attribute values and/or a price range. It conveys the filtering purpose well, but never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'search' or 'browse' tools, which likely also return product lists, leaving the agent 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?

The closing clause 'Combine with a category, brand and in-stock' implies how to compose a query, and the 'see any product's attributes' note hints at a discovery workflow. However, it never says when to prefer this over 'search' or 'browse', nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.

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