search_productsSearch products on The Wiley Rule's public product pages. Only sourced claims are returned: lab or forensic test results, FDA warning letters and court filings, each with its source document. No retailer or store information.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | Product, brand, form or chemical, e.g. 'MGPI shot' or '7-OH tablet' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: results are restricted to sourced claims and each is paired with its source document, and retailer/store data is deliberately absent. It stops short of describing result ordering or how the limit parameter behaves.
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 filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the return-content and exclusion details follow immediately without redundancy.
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 usefully enumerates what comes back (sourced claims, each with its source document), which is the key missing structured information. Minor gaps remain around result ordering and limit/pagination semantics, but nothing essential to invoking the tool correctly is absent.
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 only 50%: the query parameter is well documented in the schema (with examples), but limit (min 1, max 24, default 8) is undocumented anywhere. The description adds no parameter-level meaning at all, so it does not compensate for the undocumented limit and falls below the baseline expected when the schema carries the load.
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?
States a specific verb and resource (search products on The Wiley Rule's public product pages) and pins down the content domain with concrete examples of what is returned (lab/forensic results, FDA warning letters, court filings) plus an explicit exclusion (no retailer/store info). It does not name or contrast with the closest sibling, search_research, so differentiation from the other search tool is left to inference.
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?
Usage is implied by the scope statement ('Search products on ... public product pages'), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. The only exclusion ('No retailer or store information') is a content-scope boundary rather than guidance on choosing this tool over search_research or get_study.
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.