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. It does disclose two important traits: the search is read-only, and results are scoped to the current delivery location (implying a set_delivery_address dependency). It omits rate limits, pagination behavior for the limit param, and whether results are ranked or filtered.

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?

Two short sentences plus a result-shape note, with the core action and location scoping front-loaded. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, yet the description usefully flags id/slug and their downstream consumers. It is nearly complete for a search tool, missing only input-side semantics (query matching, limit meaning) and any mention of the location prerequisite's 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so both parameters (query, limit) rely entirely on the description, which says nothing about them. The description instead explains the *return* fields (id, slug), which is useful but does not compensate for the undocumented input semantics.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (the Lavka catalog) scoped to the current delivery location, and names the sibling tool (get_product) that consumes its results. An agent can distinguish it from get_product without opening either schema.

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 implies usage by explaining how to chain results into add_to_cart and get_product, which is genuinely useful routing context. However it never states when to use this versus browsing or direct lookup, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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