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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it specifies the scope (130+ products across listed domains), the return shape (matching product ids with price and inputs), and the fact that the tool is free. This gives the agent useful expectations for invocation and interpretation of results.

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 front-loaded with a bold directive, then presents the domain list in one efficient sentence, followed by return behavior and the follow-up tool. Every sentence contributes value, though the long domain enumeration adds some length. It remains well-structured and scannable for an agent parsing the text.

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 description covers the tool's scope, return format, and follow-up workflow, and an output schema is present, so return-value details are not required. However, it omits guidance on the input parameters (query, limit, free_only) and does not clarify how this tool relates to answerpool_list_products. For a search tool this is a notable gap, but the core usage is adequately communicated.

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?

With 3 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to compensate by explaining the meaning of query, limit, and free_only. It does not do so; no parameter is mentioned by name or described functionally. The only possible hint is the final 'Free.' which vaguely aligns with free_only but is not connected to the parameter. This leaves the agent to infer semantics from property names and defaults alone.

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 core action: 'Search 130+ computed products' across a broad set of named domains, and explains that it returns matching product ids with price and inputs. It is unambiguous about the tool's resource and purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling answerpool_list_products, leaning on the word 'search' rather than naming the alternative.

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 opening imperative 'FIND THE RIGHT DATA PRODUCT' establishes a clear use case: this tool is for locating a product in the catalog. It also gives a workflow cue, 'pass a product id to answerpool_get,' which tells the agent the natural next step after using this tool. It does not, however, state when not to use this tool or explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like answerpool_list_products.

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