search_catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond that by stating 'Prices are server-side and authoritative,' which warns the agent not to trust client-side pricing or recompute totals — a genuinely useful behavioral note not present in structured fields.

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 sentences, both front-loaded: the capability first, then a constraint that matters for correctness. No filler, no restating of the tool name.

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?

With no output schema, the description should hint at return shape, and with four parameters at 25% schema coverage it should explain max_results. It covers the filters adequately but leaves result format and one parameter's behavior undefined, which is the minimum viable rather than complete.

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 only 25%, and the description covers query (text), category, and the rupee unit for max_price_inr ('maximum price in rupees'), but says nothing about max_results, its default of 8, or its 25 cap. It partially compensates for the coverage gap but leaves one parameter undocumented in both places.

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 ('products') plus the two filters, so the agent knows exactly what it does. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_product or list_categories, but the retrieval-by-text framing is 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?

The description implies a discovery/lookup use case through 'search by text' plus optional filters, and the schema notes that an empty query returns top-rated items. However, it names no alternative ('use get_product for a known ID') and states no when-not conditions, so routing between analogs is left to inference.

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