search_products

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Search' clearly signals a read-only, non-destructive operation, and 'by name or code' defines the matching scope. It does not, however, explain whether matching is exact or partial, how results are ordered, or how the limit parameter affects the result set.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It could add a bit more semantic guidance without becoming bloated, but for a simple search tool it is appropriately sized.

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?

The presence of an output schema covers the return shape, and the core purpose is clear. Still, the definition lacks usage alternatives, matching-behavior details, and limit semantics, so an agent would have to infer or discover some invocation details from the schema alone.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the required `query` matches on name or code, but it says nothing about `limit` beyond the schema's title and default. One of two parameters remains semantically dependent on the schema alone.

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 names a specific verb ('search'), a precise resource ('product variants'), and the matching fields ('name or code'). This distinguishes it from sibling search tools such as search_lots and search_locations, and from get_product_detail, which retrieves details rather than searches.

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 phrase 'by name or code' implies the intended use case: locate product variants when you have a name or code, as opposed to using a detail or lot tool. However, there is no explicit statement of when not to use this tool or which sibling should be chosen instead.

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