Search SaaS products

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description explains the tool returns up to 20 matches and specifies the fields (slug, category, starting price). It also indicates that full plan details require using get_product, adding useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention potential edge cases like no matches or errors, though for a simple read tool this is sufficient.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value: the first defines the search functionality and the second gives usage guidelines and output details. There is no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is comprehensive. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, and how to proceed with the results. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by describing the return fields and limits.

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?

The schema description for 'query' says 'Product name or keywords', but the tool description enriches this by stating search matches by name or description and implies semantic search when the user describes a kind of tool. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema definition, covering the parameter's intent effectively.

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 PriceTrack's catalogue of SaaS products by name or description. It specifically mentions the verb 'Search', the resource, and the return of up to 20 matches with slug, category, and starting price, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_product and compare_products.

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 explicitly says when to call this tool: when the user asks what a SaaS product costs and needs its slug, or when they describe a kind of tool and want priced options. It also directs the user to use get_product with a returned slug for full plan details, providing clear guidance on alternatives.

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