search_productsVolltextsuche im Produktkatalog (Name, Artikelnummer, EAN). Gibt passende Produkte mit Preis und Verfuegbarkeit zurueck.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max. Treffer (1-50, Default 20). | |
| query | Yes | Suchbegriff (min. 2 Zeichen). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It discloses it's a search (read operation) returning price and availability, but does not mention pagination, sorting, or data freshness. With no annotations, this is adequate but has gaps.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, no wasted words. Efficient and clear.
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?
With no output schema, the description indicates returns include price and availability. It covers the search scope and basic result content. Missing details like pagination or default limit (though schema notes default 20) are minor. Adequate for a simple 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?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context by specifying search fields (name, article number, EAN), which enhances understanding beyond the schema.
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 it performs full-text search across product catalog by name, article number, and EAN, and returns products with price and availability. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_products (likely a list all) and get_product (single product).
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?
No explicit when to use or not, nor alternatives. The description implies use for text-based search, but lacks guidance compared to siblings like list_categories or get_recommendations. Adequate but could improve.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct function: inventory checks, cart creation, product search, order management, loyalty, support. No overlap among search_products, list_products, and get_product; similarly, list_orders and request_address_change are unique.
All tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., check_availability, create_cart, link_account) with consistent snake_case and English verbs, even though the shop is German. No mix of conventions.
19 tools is slightly above the typical 3-15 range for a focused server, but the number is justified by the breadth of shop functionality (product browsing, orders, cart, loyalty, guides, support). Not excessive.
Covers core shopping flows: product discovery, cart creation, order tracking, and account linking. However, missing tools for cart modification (add/remove items), order cancellation/returns, and checkout. These gaps may cause agent failures.