autotask_search_products

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'optional filters' which hints at flexibility, but doesn't describe what the tool returns (product list? details?), whether results are paginated (implied by pageSize parameter but not stated), authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a search tool and gets straight to the point.

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?

For a search tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'product' in this context, what fields are searchable beyond name, what the return format looks like, or any limitations. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects.

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 parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond mentioning 'optional filters' generally. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting, but doesn't provide extra context about how parameters interact or typical usage patterns.

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 verb ('Search') and resource ('products'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other search tools in the sibling list (like autotask_search_companies, autotask_search_services, etc.), which all follow the same 'search for X with optional filters' pattern.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this search is appropriate versus other product-related tools (like autotask_get_product), or any contextual limitations. The phrase 'with optional filters' is descriptive but doesn't constitute usage guidance.

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