search_products

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool searches across multiple networks and returns products with prices and affiliate links, which is useful. However, it does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as rate limits, failure handling, or whether results are merged from all networks simultaneously. The description is adequate but not overly informative.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the main action and return type. There is no redundant information or filler, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given that the schema fully documents all parameters, the description only needs to convey the tool's purpose and return type, which it does. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the clear statement that it returns products with prices and affiliate links. However, it could have benefited from mentioning the availability of filters like networks, merchants, and max_results, though these are covered in the schema.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 5 parameters, including defaults and constraints. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already offers, so the baseline score 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Search for products'), the resource ('products across affiliate networks'), and the specific networks (Awin, Amazon, Tradedoubler, AliExpress). It also identifies the return value ('products with prices and affiliate links'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like match_bom, generate_affiliate_link, list_merchants, and sync_feeds that perform different functions.

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 implies that this tool is used to search for products across the listed affiliate networks, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like match_bom or generate_affiliate_link. There is no mention of when not to use it or any alternative guidance, leaving the usage to be inferred from the name and purpose.

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