search_products

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'Search[es] for products' but doesn't describe important behaviors: whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or handles errors. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action, which is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: it starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by a structured 'Args' and 'Returns' section. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The formatting with bullet-like sections enhances readability without unnecessary verbosity.

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 (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers parameter semantics well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., authentication needs, error handling) and doesn't explain the return value beyond 'Dictionary containing product search results'. For a search tool with multiple parameters and no output schema, more detail on behavior and returns would improve completeness.

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 low (20%), but the description compensates well by explaining all parameters in the 'Args' section. It adds meaning beyond the schema: for example, it clarifies that 'search_term' accepts examples like 'milk', 'bread', 'organic apples', and that 'fulfillment' filters by methods such as 'csp=curbside pickup, delivery, pickup'. This provides practical context that the schema lacks.

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's purpose: 'Search for products at a Kroger store.' It specifies the verb ('Search') and resource ('products'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_products_by_id' or 'get_product_details', which is why it doesn't reach a score of 5.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'search_products_by_id' (which likely searches by product ID rather than term) or 'get_product_details' (which might retrieve detailed info for a specific product). There's also no information about prerequisites (e.g., authentication) or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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