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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses matching semantics (exact, case-insensitive), that keys are the store's own specification attributes, and that prices are in the store's currency, but says nothing about read-only safety, pagination, result limits, or what an empty match returns.

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?

One dense but well-structured sentence with the primary capability front-loaded, followed by the concrete price example. The parenthetical on attribute semantics earns its place; nothing 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the two headline filter axes but omits pagination, sorting, and the fulfilment option. Return values need not be explained given no output schema, but the parameter surface is only partly addressed.

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 30% across 10 parameters, so the description needs to compensate and it partially does: it clarifies attributes (key: value object), price_min/price_max units with examples, and alludes to category/brand/in_stock_only. It leaves page, page_size, sort and fulfilment unexplained.

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 (filter) and resource (Seating Co products) plus the two filtering axes: attribute values and price range. An agent can tell what it returns without opening the schema, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the search or browse siblings.

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 implied rather than stated: attribute/price narrowing plus 'Combine with a category, brand and in-stock' signals faceted filtering, and 'see any product's attributes' tells the agent where to source the keys. There is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-search-or-browse guidance or exclusions.

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