Search Galaxus products

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full burden. It transparently reports that results include price, rating, availability, URL, and a nextCursor for pagination, which is valuable behavioral context about output and pagination. It does not explicitly mention read-only nature or login requirements, but 'search' strongly implies non-mutating behavior, and no such missing details are critical.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Search the Galaxus / Digitec catalog by keyword') and then lists the key return values. Every word contributes, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool has 8 parameters but a rich schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential return values and pagination mechanism. It does not mention the available filters (sort, brand, price, rating) in prose, but the schema handles those. Sibling alternatives are not referenced, but the description is largely complete for a search tool.

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 high (88%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds almost no parameter-level semantics beyond noting keyword search and the nextCursor return field; it does not explain sort, brand, price filters, or limit behavior, but these are already described in the schema properties.

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 'Search[es] the Galaxus / Digitec catalog by keyword' and specifies return fields (price, rating, availability, URL, nextCursor). This verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_product (likely single-product lookup) and list_category (category browsing).

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 provides clear context for when to use: performing a keyword-based catalog search with pagination. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings (e.g., 'use get_product for exact product details') or state when not to use it, so it stops short of an explicit when/when-not.

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