products_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Search products' reveals nothing about whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it's paginated, what the return format is, or any rate limits. For a 6-parameter search tool with complex filtering capabilities, this is critically inadequate.

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 at just two words, but this is under-specification rather than effective brevity. While it's front-loaded (the entire description is the purpose), it fails to provide necessary context. The structure is minimal but not helpful.

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 complexity (6 parameters with nested filterGroups object, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is completely inadequate. A search tool with advanced filtering capabilities needs explanation of parameter usage, return format, pagination behavior, and relationship to other product tools. The current description provides none of this.

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 0%, meaning none of the 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description 'Search products' adds absolutely no information about what parameters are available, what they mean, or how to use them. This leaves all parameters (query, limit, after, sorts, properties, filterGroups) completely undocumented.

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 'Search products' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It doesn't specify what kind of search (full-text, filtered, etc.), what resource scope (all products, specific catalog), or how it differs from sibling tools like 'products_list' or 'products_read'. While the verb 'search' is clear, the description lacks specificity and sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools for products (products_list, products_read, products_search) with no indication of when search is preferred over list or read. No prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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