Search Catalog

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses error behavior (returns an error object instead of protocol error) and emphasizes safe retry after correction. It also notes the output format and that the service is FREE, adding meaningful behavioral context.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes a compact example. It has no unnecessary content except a one-word 'FREE' notice, which is acceptable.

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 an output schema, the description covers ranking, error handling, browse mode, and retry safety. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional context.

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 covers all 3 parameters with full descriptions, and the description adds a concrete typical input example and explains that an empty query with an area set browses that area. This enriches the bare schema with intended usage 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?

The description clearly states it searches all 138 catalog products by keyword and/or focus area, providing a specific verb, resource, and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_full_product (details) and recommend_products (recommendations).

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 explicit usage patterns, such as keyword search, focus-area browsing, and a typical input example. It does not mention alternative tools by name or provide exclusion criteria, but the context is clear enough for selecting the right tool.

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