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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the matching algorithm — all query words must appear, in any order, case-insensitive — which is genuine behavioral value not present in the schema. However, it omits pagination behavior, default ordering, result limits and the fact that this is a non-mutating read.

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 no filler; the matching rules are front-loaded where an agent will read them. It is efficient, though the parenthetical clause packs several caveats into one parenthetical.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description is the only source of behavioral context, yet it says nothing about result shape, pagination or ordering. For a paginated search endpoint with a 50-item page cap in the schema, an agent lacks enough to call it confidently.

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% (just 'sort'), and the description compensates only for the query parameter's semantics. The page, page_size and sort parameters get no explanation of defaults, ranges or effect on results, leaving three of four parameters under-documented.

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 resource (products in the Media Depot catalogue) and precisely defines the operation: a full-text match across title, description, brand, category and attributes. It is specific enough to distinguish a full-text search from a facet tool like 'filter', though it never names siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus 'browse', 'filter', or 'categories', and no mention of prerequisites or when a result set is better obtained another way. The agent must infer the routing decision entirely on its own.

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