products_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides none. 'Search products' doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether results are paginated, what the response format looks like, or any rate limits. For a search tool with 6 parameters and complex filtering capabilities, this is completely inadequate.

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?

While technically concise with just two words, this is a case of harmful under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description doesn't contain enough information to be useful, so its conciseness is detrimental rather than beneficial. No structure exists beyond the minimal phrase.

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 complexity (6 parameters including nested filtering objects), complete lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. 'Search products' doesn't provide enough context for an AI agent to understand how to properly use this tool, what it returns, or how it differs from other product-related tools.

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 and 6 parameters (including complex nested objects like filterGroups), the description 'Search products' provides zero information about any parameters. It doesn't mention query, limit, pagination via 'after', sorting options, property selection, or filtering capabilities. The description fails completely to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 'Search products' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding any meaningful clarification. It doesn't specify what kind of search (full-text, filtered, etc.) or what resource scope (all products, specific categories). While it includes the verb 'search' and resource 'products', it provides no differentiation from sibling tools like 'products_list' or 'crm_search_objects'.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when this search tool should be used instead of 'products_list' or other search tools in the sibling list. No context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or limitations is provided.

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