Search LMK products; returns citable results, each with a canonical LMK product-page URL. Use for shopping/discovery. For price/brand/on-sale filters, use search_catalog.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | Natural-language product search query |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| results | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds that results are citable and include product-page URLs, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.
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 informative sentences. Front-loaded with action and key information. Could be slightly more concise but effectively communicates purpose and alternatives.
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 the tool's simplicity (2 params, no nested objects, output schema present), the description covers purpose, output format, and distinctions from siblings. Minor omission: no mention of default limit or pagination.
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 50% (only 'query' described). The description does not add meaning for the 'limit' parameter, and 'query' is already described in the schema. No additional parameter semantics provided.
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 LMK products and returns citable results with canonical URLs. It also distinguishes itself from search_catalog by noting that search_catalog is for price/brand/on-sale filters.
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?
Explicitly provides usage guidance: 'Use for shopping/discovery.' and directs to search_catalog for filter-based queries. This helps an agent decide when to use this tool versus alternatives.
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 are distinct, but 'fetch' and 'get_product' have overlapping functionality (both provide full detail and buying options), and 'search' vs 'search_catalog' could confuse agents about which to use for general search. Otherwise clear.
Predominantly uses 'get_' prefix for retrieval tools and 'search' for search tools, but 'fetch' and 'lookup_catalog' deviate slightly from the pattern, reducing consistency.
13 tools is well-scoped for a commerce server covering product discovery, pricing, deals, collections, and gift ideas without being overwhelming or sparse.
Covers key product research and price comparison workflows, but lacks tools for user interaction (e.g., wishlists, purchasing) or multi-product comparisons, which would enhance completeness.
