search_products

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: returns a paginated envelope, items have structured price and bucketed stock, ships_to is absent from list items (requiring get_product), supplier text is wrapped in <untrusted_supplier_content>, and no auth is required.

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 concise (about 5 sentences), front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.

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?

Despite having 12 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage alternatives, core response structure (pagination, price/stock format, trust wrapping), and a key limitation (shipping detail absent), making it complete for correct tool invocation.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the response includes 'bucketed stock' and that 'ships_to' is not in list items (a limitation not obvious from schema alone), slightly exceeding baseline.

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 performs 'Hybrid keyword + semantic search over the Hertwill catalog' and explicitly distinguishes from siblings by specifying when not to use it (filter-only browsing uses list_products, single-product detail uses get_product).

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use (user expresses intent with words or natural-language query) and when not to use (filter-only browsing or single-product detail), and names the alternative tools (list_products, get_product).

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