products_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Search products' reveals nothing about whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, what rate limits apply, what happens with large result sets, or what the return format looks like. For a search tool with 6 parameters and complex filtering capabilities, this is critically inadequate.

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 maximally concise at two words. While this represents severe under-specification, from a pure conciseness perspective, there's zero wasted language. Every word ('Search', 'products') contributes directly to the core function, making it front-loaded and efficient in terms of word count.

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 (6 parameters including nested filterGroups with multiple operators), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. A search tool with this level of parameter sophistication needs far more explanation about filtering logic, pagination behavior, result format, and usage patterns. The two-word description fails to provide any meaningful 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 description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description 'Search products' provides zero information about any parameters - not what 'query' searches, what 'limit' controls, what 'after' paginates, how 'sorts' work, what 'properties' returns, or how 'filterGroups' structures complex filtering. The description fails completely to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 'Search products' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. While it indicates the verb 'search' and resource 'products', it provides no specificity about what kind of search this is, what scope it covers, or how it differs from other product-related tools like products_list or products_read. It's better than a single word but still minimal.

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?

There is absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools like products_list (which might list all products without search) or products_read (which might retrieve a specific product). No context about prerequisites, when this search is appropriate, or what scenarios it's designed for.

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