search_products

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying it returns real stock and prices with active promotions applied. This goes beyond the annotation and helps the agent understand the output semantics without needing an output schema.

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, front-loaded with the main verb and resource, then returning output and usage. Every word earns its place; no filler or 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?

The description covers purpose, output, and usage guidance. It does not explain how multiple filters combine or mention the limit parameter, but the schema documents limit defaults and other details. For a read-only search tool with no output schema, this is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 67%, with brand and category lacking descriptions. The description adds some meaning by clarifying that filters are combinable ('by free text, category, brand and/or maximum budget') and that max_price represents a budget, but it does not fully compensate for the missing brand/category descriptions or explain how filters interact (e.g., AND vs OR). This is adequate but not exceptional.

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 the tool searches the store catalogue using free text, category, brand, and/or budget, and explicitly lists what it returns (SKU, price with promotions, real stock). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_product_details or check_availability by establishing it as the general catalogue search entry point.

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 clear usage context: 'Use this before answering anything about what the store sells.' This directs the agent to use it as a first step. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it lacks exclusions.

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