lufa_search_products

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It adds useful context about the tool being a fast, targeted search rather than a full catalog fetch. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination, or whether any side effects or permissions are involved. Since search is inherently read-only, some safety is implied, but the description could be richer.

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 compact and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose, a one-sentence usage guideline, and an Args block with a definition and examples. Every sentence adds value; there is no redundancy or 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?

For a simple one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential dimensions: what it does, when to use it, and the parameter meaning. It omits details about the result structure (e.g., product IDs, names), but given the low complexity and the fact that search results are typically self-explanatory, this is a minor gap.

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 provides only the parameter name 'query' with no description (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by defining query as 'Search term' and providing concrete examples ('heirloom tomatoes', 'sourdough bread', 'goat cheese'), giving the agent clear semantic guidance.

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 action ('Search'), the resource ('Lufa Farms marketplace'), and the method ('by keyword'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like lufa_get_products by noting it avoids loading the full catalog, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly says when to use this tool: 'to quickly locate a specific item without loading the full catalog.' This implies the alternative is the full-catalog tool (lufa_get_products), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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