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 the matching algorithm (all words, any order, case-insensitive) and the fields searched, but says nothing about result caps, default ordering, or pagination behavior, which matter for a search endpoint.

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 rule and searched fields are front-loaded. It is fragment-like rather than a complete sentence, but every clause earns its place.

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 four-parameter search with no annotations, no output schema, and 25% schema coverage, the definition explains the query but omits pagination and ordering defaults. The agent can form a valid call, but not predict result-set behavior.

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'), so the description must compensate. It adds genuine meaning for 'query' (word matching across five field groups, order- and case-insensitive), but leaves 'page' and 'page_size' entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 of Slumber Direct) and precisely defines the matching rule across title, description, brand, category and attributes, which an agent can act on. It does not explicitly contrast against the sibling 'filter' or 'browse' tools, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 statement of when to use keyword search versus the sibling tools 'filter' (faceted) or 'browse' (unfiltered listing), nor any exclusion. The semantics of the query are clear, but the routing decision between search and its siblings is absent.

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