jumbo_search_products

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the shape of the response (prices, active discounts, unit prices, web links, SKUs), which is genuinely useful, but it says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or empty-result handling.

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 tightly written sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the return payload summarized second. There is no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by enumerating the fields returned, and the limit parameter bounds the result size in place of documented pagination. Only auth/permission context is missing, which is minor for a public catalog search.

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 all three parameters (query, limit, sort) are already documented in the schema, including the enum values for sort and the min/max for limit. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verb (search) and resource (the entire Jumbo supermarket grocery catalog) scoped by keyword, and enumerates the returned fields. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like jumbo_search_stores or jumbo_get_product_recommendations by resource, though it never explicitly names or contrasts them.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'search ... by keyword' tells the agent this is the finder for products, but there is no guidance on when to prefer it over jumbo_get_product_recommendations, jumbo_search_stores, or jumbo_get_basket, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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