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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields (product_id, name, description, features, in-stock colour count) and implies a read-only search operation. It lacks explicit statements about combined filter behavior or result ordering, but the core behavior is sufficiently transparent.

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 use case, then filters, return fields, and next-step guidance. Zero fluff, every sentence 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately informs the agent of expected return fields. It also connects to downstream tools. It does not mention how multiple filters interact or what happens if no filters are specified, but these are minor gaps for a search tool with this schema richness.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all parameters, including the blind-type list, partial match for colour, and unit clarification for dimensions. The description adds little beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool searches products by listing filter criteria (blind type, colour, dimensions) and explicitly frames it as the tool to use before a product ID is known. This distinguishes it from ID-based tools like get_product and guides the invocation correctly.

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?

The description gives an explicit condition for use ('when the customer hasn't specified a product ID yet') and suggests next steps (get_price, configure_product). It does not explicitly rule out sibling tools like search_catalog or lookup_catalog, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to choose appropriately.

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