search_products

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It covers the return format and default behavior but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or mention authentication requirements. Given sibling tools include login, this is a notable gap, though the read-only nature is implied.

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 well-structured with a header, Args, and Returns sections. It is concise but includes necessary details; each sentence adds value. Minor redundancy: 'list of product objects' could be inferred from 'each containing,' but overall efficient.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 params, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, parameters with examples, and return fields. It lacks error handling or edge case info, but for a straightforward search, this is adequate.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates. It explains 'query' as a free-text search string with concrete examples, and 'max_results' as a maximum with default 10, adding meaning beyond the schema's titles and default value.

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 explicitly states 'Search for products on the Tuma250 grocery site,' providing a clear verb (search) and resource (products) with site specificity. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_product_variations or login, which have different purposes.

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 gives usage guidance with parameter examples ('e.g. "butter 500g" or "rice 5kg"') and explains the max_results default. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a product ID is known (use get_product_variations). This omission prevents a higher score.

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