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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It adds one important behavior—output is constrained to safe columns, excluding cost_price/markup—which is not visible in the schema. However, it does not describe return shape, defaults, ordering, or error behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for a tool without an output schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and quickly adding the safety-column constraint. Every sentence contributes information; no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool has six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description needs to cover returns and defaults. It covers the safe-column behavior but omits response_format semantics, limit/default behavior, and the fact that category/name filtering happens through the search parameter rather than separate parameters. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description restates filtering by type/category/name/in_stock status, but adds no syntax, precedence, or formatting detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Search products in a tenant catalog') and immediately states the key differentiating constraint: returns safe columns only and excludes cost_price/markup, which separates it from price-focused siblings like get_prices. The filter dimensions are enumerated, making the tool's scope unmistakable.

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?

Clear use context is provided: search a tenant's product catalog with the supported filters. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of a 5, but the context is sufficiently clear that an agent knows this is the product-search entry point.

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