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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, so the description only needs to add value beyond that. It does so by revealing that the tool returns matching product ids with price and inputs, and that it is free. This gives useful behavioral context without contradicting the annotations.

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 efficiently organized: a purpose statement, an enumerative scope list, the return behavior, and a workflow hint. The domain list is long but informative and earns its place. The all-caps opener is stylistically noisy but does not hurt clarity.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return structures. It covers search scope, return contents, pricing, and the follow-up tool. It lacks explicit guidance on the free_only and limit parameters and does not contrast with answerpool_list_products, but overall it is reasonably complete for a search tool.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden for explaining parameter semantics. It implicitly explains 'query' by describing the searchable domains, but it does not mention 'limit' or 'free_only' at all. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.

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's function: searching the AnswerPool catalog across 130+ computed products in many domains. It specifies the verb 'search', the resource 'catalog', and the return payload (product ids, price, inputs), plus the follow-up action (pass product id to answerpool_get). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like answerpool_get and answerpool_list_products, even without naming them.

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 provides a clear usage context: 'FIND THE RIGHT DATA PRODUCT' and explains the workflow of searching then passing a product id to answerpool_get. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative siblings like answerpool_list_products, but the intended use case is evident.

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