otto_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It meaningfully discloses pagination behavior, specifying a fixed 109-card page and valid offset values, and reveals the return format as server-rendered product cards. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but for a simple search tool the provided transparency is substantial.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by pagination details. There is minor redundancy between the first and second sentences, but every sentence carries useful information and there is no fluff.

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?

For a search tool with just two parameters, the description covers the query semantics, result format, and pagination rules. A small gap is the lack of mention of what happens when no results are found, but this is not critical for correctly invoking the 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 already describes both parameters, and the description adds value on the offset parameter by explaining why the 109 multiple constraint exists (fixed page size) and providing concrete examples (0, 109, 218). This goes beyond a simple restating of the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Search Otto.de products', and adds context about the public catalogue and server-rendered product cards. This clearly distinguishes it from related siblings like otto_categories and otto_product.

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 states what the tool does but offers no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives, such as using otto_categories for browsing categories or otto_product for a single product. Usage context is only implied, with no conditions or exclusions provided.

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