search_public_catalog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It usefully conveys that only 'verified public' catalogs are searched, implying no auth and read-only behavior, but says nothing about result ordering, pagination via limit, or what the response contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though the trailing modifier list is somewhat generic and could have carried more discriminating detail at the same length.

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 four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, an agent needs more than the description gives: the effect of limit, whether results are paginated, and what a returned product record looks like are all unstated. It is adequate to call the tool but not to predict its output.

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 75%, so the schema already documents query, subdomain, and max_price. The description only restates the subdomain and price filters without adding format, matching semantics, or default behavior for limit.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Searches for products across verified public store catalogs') and scopes it to a catalog search, which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling search_public_stores. It is clear what the tool returns conceptually, though it never names the store-level sibling explicitly.

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 phrase 'with optional store subdomain and price filters' hints at when to use the tool (broad product search with narrowing filters), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to search_public_stores for store lookup. Usage is only implied.

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