search_products

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says this is a 'filtered search' and sketches the filter shape, leaving out whether the operation is read-only, what happens with invalid filters, how results are ordered, or how limits behave.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler. The filter-format hint is useful, though the brevity leaves several parameters unexplained.

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 six parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many similar sibling tools, the description is too sparse. An agent would still need to guess about valid filter operators, the meaning of sort/columns/limit, and whether table and family are mutually exclusive.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'filters' via the [{column, op, value}] shape and partially explains table/family scope, but it does not explain sort, limit, columns, valid operators, or how table and family relate.

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 states a clear action and scope: a filtered search over one table or family. It is more specific than the bare tool name, but it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like run_select, search_lookups, or search_knowledge_base.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use search_products versus the many sibling search/query tools. The phrase 'over one table or family' hints at scope constraints, but it never says when this tool should be chosen or avoided.

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