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 behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about read-only semantics, pagination behavior (despite page/per_page existing), default result size, or how multiple filters combine. For a filter-heavy query tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 compact lines with no filler, and the primary purpose is front-loaded before the stock_status detail. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification of non-filter parameters.

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 six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is only minimally complete: it covers the filter surface but says nothing about pagination, result volume, or response shape. Adequate to call the tool, but an agent gets no help on paging or interpreting results.

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 the description must compensate. It usefully maps four of six parameters (query, sku, category, stock_status) and — critically — enumerates the allowed stock_status values (instock/outofstock/onbackorder) and clarifies that category takes an id or name, neither of which the schema conveys. However, page and per_page semantics are untouched, so compensation is partial.

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) and enumerates the searchable dimensions: free text, SKU, category id/name, stock status. It distinguishes itself implicitly from siblings like get_product (single lookup) and list_inventory. No sibling is named explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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 list of filter dimensions implies when the tool applies (filtered product retrieval), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion, and no pointer to alternatives such as get_product for a single item or list_inventory for stock views. Usage 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.