lookup_products

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it's a search operation (implied read-only), explains how to handle different result scenarios (single vs. multiple matches), and provides pagination defaults. It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication requirements, but covers core behavioral aspects well.

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?

Well-structured with purpose first, then usage guidelines, then parameter details. Every sentence adds value, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more concise. The bullet points for result handling are effective for readability.

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 has an output schema (mentioned in context signals), the description appropriately focuses on purpose, usage, and parameters rather than return values. It provides complete guidance for how to use this tool effectively in the workflow, with clear parameter explanations and behavioral context.

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 description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters. It provides clear semantics for 'query' (search string format with examples), 'page' (0-based with default), and 'size' (max 50 with default). The description adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 ('Look up') and resource ('products by name'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying its role in the workflow ('Use this BEFORE filtering leads by product'). It's specific about the resource type (products) and operation (lookup by name).

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this BEFORE filtering leads by product when the user gives a product name') and provides detailed workflow guidance including what to do with single vs. multiple results. It clearly positions this as a prerequisite step for search_leads.

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