run_wayfair_products_searchSearch Wayfair products by keyword. Returns products with title, brand, price, list price, currency, discount, rating, review count and images. 1 point per returned record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keyword | Yes | Search term. e.g. velvet accent chair | |
| max_items | No | Max items (up to 300) Default: 25. | |
| start_page | No | Starting page Default: 1. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned fields (title, brand, price, list price, currency, discount, rating, review count, images) and a significant behavioral trait: '1 point per returned record.' It does not cover pagination ordering or rate limits, but for a search tool the cost and return disclosure are substantial.
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 tight sentences with zero waste. The purpose and key return information are front-loaded, and the cost note is included economically.
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 and no annotations, the description adequately states what it searches and what it returns. It could be improved by naming the alternative product-detail tool or clarifying pagination behavior, but the essential invocation information is present.
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 schema already explains all three parameters (keyword, max_items, start_page). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the keyword concept, which is the baseline case for high schema 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 verb and resource: 'Search Wayfair products by keyword.' This clearly distinguishes it from non-search siblings like run_wayfair_products, but it does not explicitly contrast with the closest sibling (run_wayfair_products) or other marketplace search tools.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely says it searches by keyword and does not mention the sibling run_wayfair_products (product detail lookup) or any conditions that would route an agent away from this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.