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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the default for includeInvalidOffers (false, meaning only valid offers), and confirms the tool is read-only (consistent with readOnlyHint annotation). No contradictions; the description enriches the annotation.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and lists key features concisely. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite clear purpose and features, the description does not explain the return structure beyond 'array of product search result fragments.' With 8 parameters, no output schema, and nested objects, the description should elaborate on the output fields and any error behavior. This gap makes the tool less transparent for automated invocation.

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 schema description coverage at 38%, the description partially compensates by mentioning 'Supports pagination, ordering, filtering' for parameters like productsSkip, productsFirst, productsOrderBy, and productsOrderDirection. However, it does not explain the meaning of nested objects (productsFilter) or the full list of ordering fields. The includeInvalidOffers parameter is well-described, but overall the description adds only moderate value 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 'Searches products in the Boson subgraph by keywords matched against title, description, brand, category, and tags,' specifying the verb, resource, and search fields. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like get_all_products_with_not_voided_variants by being a keyword search with pagination and filtering.

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 clear usage context: it is a read-only search tool supporting pagination, ordering, filtering, and an includeInvalidOffers flag. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it with alternatives like get_all_products_with_not_voided_variants, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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