search_products

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the max_price limitation and mentions normalized output structure, but omits rate limits, pagination details, or side effects. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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 concise (two short paragraphs) and well-structured: a summary sentence followed by a clear, bullet-like Args list. No 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?

Given no annotations and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers input parameters and mentions the data source limitation. It lacks details on authentication, error handling, or pagination beyond limit, but is largely sufficient for a search tool.

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, but the tool description's Args section compensates fully by explaining each parameter with examples, defaults, and constraints (e.g., limit max 50, max_price not available for OFF). This adds significant meaning.

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 'Search products with agent-friendly structured results.' and enumerates the returned fields, making the purpose specific and distinct from siblings like get_product_details or compare_products.

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 search examples ('organic chocolate') and explains each parameter's role, including limitations ('not available for OFF data'). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, the context implies this is for broad keyword-based searches.

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