Search Woolworths products

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: the exact return fields, coverage semantics, ANDing of query words, ranking padding, unitPrice formatting and absence, and per-location prices. This goes well beyond what annotations or schema convey, with no contradiction.

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 five dense sentences, each earning its place: purpose, return values, query ANDing and ranking caveat, unitPrice caveat, and location dependence. It is front-loaded with the core function and return shape, followed by high-value warnings. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the return fields and explaining the coverage sentence, which is essential for correct reasoning. It also covers ranking padding, unitPrice comparability, and location context. An agent has what it needs to avoid common wrong answers when searching the catalogue.

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%, and the schema already documents each parameter's purpose, including the department filter's post-search application and CUPAsc's unit caveat. The description reinforces unitPrice-related output caveats but adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search the Woolworths New Zealand catalogue by keyword.' This clearly identifies what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling search_products_batch, so it stops short of a 5.

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 clear context for when to use the tool, especially the instruction to read the coverage sentence before answering cheapest/only/none questions and to call get_location/set_location for location-dependent prices. It does not mention search_products_batch as an alternative for batch or multi-query use, so it misses an explicit exclusion.

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