search_products

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the important facts that the tool is read-only and that prices are in CNY cents (int), which aids interpretation of results, but it says nothing about pagination behavior, default page size, or the shape of returned results.

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?

Three terse sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. Nothing redundant or bloated for a definition of this scope.

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?

A four-parameter search tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage needs the description to explain filtering and pagination, yet it covers none of that. The result is too thin for the tool's complexity, leaving the agent to guess at page/page_size semantics and result structure.

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% and none of the four parameters (page, query, category, page_size) are described. The description's only data note, CNY cents pricing, concerns return values rather than inputs, so it adds no parameter meaning whatsoever.

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 clear verb ("Search") and resource ("mock catalog"), which an agent can distinguish from get_product's single-item retrieval. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, so it falls short of the 5-level sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as get_product, and no prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the verb "Search".

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