search_products

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does well: it discloses that results are live, scoped to one store, and that location_id has fallback behavior (saved default). It does not explicitly state auth requirements or failure modes, but 'Search' makes the read-only nature evident.

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 summary sentence is front-loaded and precise, and the Args block is compact with no filler. Every sentence contributes actionable 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?

For a search tool with four parameters and an output schema present, the description is complete: it covers required vs optional params, defaults, bounds, and filter options. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 Args section adds meaning for all four parameters despite 0% schema coverage: term gets an example, location_id gets its default/store purpose, limit gets a 1-50 range, and fulfillment gets explicit allowed values (pickup, delivery, in_store, ship_to_home). This fully compensates for the bare 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 products with live pricing and stock at one King Soopers store.' It clearly communicates the tool's function, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling get_product or find_stores.

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 gives clear context (single-store scope, live pricing/stock, default store behavior), so an agent can infer when search_products applies. However, it never names alternatives or states when to use get_product or find_stores instead.

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