Search products

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the basic search action and return of details, omitting important traits such as pagination, latency, error handling, or permissions required for a tool that searches across many stores.

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, compact sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and scope. It is concise with no unnecessary words, though 'hundreds of stores' is slightly vague but still contributes context. It earns a 4 for efficiency and structure.

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?

This is a search tool with no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not explain the structure of returned matches, potential errors, or the effect of parameters like max_results. Given the complexity of searching across many stores, the description is insufficient for full agent understanding.

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 describes all four parameters with adequate detail (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema; it only loosely references 'region' and 'details' without clarifying parameter behavior or interactions.

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's function: searching for a product across many stores in a region and returning details for each match. It uses a specific verb and resource, and 'across hundreds of stores' differentiates it from get_product (single product) and compare_prices (price comparison), though it does not explicitly name these alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_product or compare_prices. The description implies a broad search use case but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions where another tool would be more appropriate.

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