Search Jumbo Products

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the description is free to add value — and it does, enumerating the exact payload fields an agent will get back (prices, active discounts, unit prices, links, SKUs) in the absence of an output schema. It is silent on behavior beyond that, such as empty-result handling or rate limits.

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, zero filler. The core action and scope come first, the return payload second, which is the right front-loading for a search tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description's field enumeration does real work in telling the agent what a result looks like. Combined with fully documented parameters and a readOnly annotation, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only pagination/result-size behavior is left to the schema's limit description.

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 coverage is 100%: query, sort enum with both values explained, and limit with default and max all carry rich in-schema descriptions. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 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 and resource — search the Jumbo grocery catalog by keyword — and names the returned data (prices, discounts, unit prices, links, SKUs). It is clearly distinguishable from the receipt- and store-oriented siblings by the word 'catalog', though it never names any sibling explicitly.

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 implied: keyword lookup across the whole catalog, which positions it as the broad discovery tool versus narrower siblings like jumbo_get_product_recommendations. However, no when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance or alternative routing is provided.

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