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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses meaningful operational details: results are capped between 1 and 10, and billing is metered at an average cost. It does not describe error behavior or authentication, but the key cost and result-limit traits are covered.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core function and result limits, followed by billing context. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant filler.

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 search tool with well-documented parameters, the description captures the essential behavior, result bounds, and cost implications. It lacks output-shape details and sibling differentiation, but those are partially covered by schema parameter descriptions and not strictly required here.

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 100%, so the input schema already thoroughly documents all four parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline for high coverage.

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 states a specific action ('Searches for products by barcode or name') and a concrete resource scope, plus an explicit result count range. It is clear and informative, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_api_external_getProducts or get_api_external_product_of_market.

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 phrase 'Searches for products by barcode or name' implies the tool is appropriate when a user needs product lookup by those keys. However, there is no guidance about when to prefer this tool over sibling tools, nor any exclusions or alternative routing.

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