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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, and the description reinforces the safety scope ('Alleen lezen; geen upload of aankoop'). More valuably, it discloses what the response contains — stable product/variant IDs, exact dimensions, VAT prices, availability, and product links — which compensates for the absent 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?

Three tight sentences: what it searches, what it returns, and its safety scope. Nothing is padded and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 read-only search with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, and safety adequately. The remaining gap is pagination behaviour (limit/offset defaults and caps), which an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 0% for four parameters, so the description must carry the load. It accounts for 'query' (topic, colour, product name) and indirectly for 'category' by naming the two product types, but says nothing about 'limit' or 'offset' pagination semantics or the 240-character/20-result bounds.

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 ('Zoek openbaar verkrijgbaar behang en fotoreliëf') and the facets searched (onderwerp, kleur, productnaam), which is far more specific than the title alone. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as get_product, but the search-vs-retrieve distinction is inferable.

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 — search the public catalogue when you have a topic, colour, or product name — but there is no explicit statement of when to use this instead of get_product or the design/quote tools. An agent must infer the routing from the sibling names.

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