searchSearch the workspace's product catalogue by free text (title, brand, or SKU). Returns matching products as citeable results with stable ids — pass an id to fetch for full detail. Built for deep-research and retrieval workflows.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Free-text search over product title, brand, or SKU. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds that results are citeable with stable ids and that full detail requires a fetch call, making the output format and follow-up behavior clear. It does not mention pagination or result limits, but the annotations reduce the burden.
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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds value. It is concise, structured, and free of 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 one-parameter search tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description provides sufficient context. It explains the search scope, the nature of results, and the recommended follow-up action, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 full coverage for the single query parameter, describing it as free-text over product title, brand, or SKU. The description repeats this information without adding new semantic details about parameter format, length, or constraints, so it does not elevate the score above the baseline.
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 the workspace's product catalogue by free text across title, brand, or SKU. It distinguishes this from sibling search tools like search_inventory or search_orders by specifying the product catalogue scope, and from get_* tools by focusing on search and discovery of citeable results.
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 explicitly states it is built for deep-research and retrieval workflows, giving clear usage context. It also instructs to pass an id to fetch for full detail, guiding the user to the appropriate next step. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly name alternatives like search_catalog, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.
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.
Most tools target distinct data points (e.g., get_analytics_summary vs get_brand_score). However, 'search' and 'search_catalog' have overlapping functionality and could cause confusion, and 'fetch' is a helper tied to 'search', adding minor ambiguity.
The majority use consistent verb_noun snake_case (e.g., get_inventory, list_stores). Exceptions like 'fetch' and 'search' (without object) break the pattern, but they are few.
43 tools is excessive for a data-retrieval-only API. Many get_* and search_* tools could be consolidated (e.g., search_catalog, search_inventory, search_orders are similar). The large number will overwhelm an agent.
The tool set is entirely read-only (get, search, list, fetch). There are no create, update, or delete tools, which is a critical gap for managing e-commerce operations. Agents can only view data, not act on it.