search_products

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

With no annotations and only a one-line description, behavioral details are minimal. It doesn't disclose whether the search is case-sensitive, whether it returns multiple results, or if pagination is supported. The description implies a read-only operation but lacks specifics.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No filler or redundant information.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, and an output schema exists to document returns. The description covers the core functionality but could add context about result cardinality (e.g., returns all matching products) or when to expect no results.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description adds value by explaining the 'query' parameter accepts SKU or name. However, it doesn't specify expected formats (e.g., whether SKU must be exact) or constraints, leaving some ambiguity.

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 products by SKU or name, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_product' (by ID), 'list_products' (all), and 'lookup_product_id' (by other criteria). However, it does not specify search behavior (e.g., partial/fuzzy matching) which would strengthen clarity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't indicate that this should be used when a SKU or partial name is known, versus 'list_products' for browsing all products.

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