customer_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 transparency. It only states what the tool does but does not disclose language handling, limit behavior, price range semantics, or return format. There is no mention of how the 'query' relates to category/brand, nor any output details.

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 sentence, concise and to the point. It avoids redundancy, but its brevity comes at the cost of missing important contextual details. Still, it earns a 4 for being compact and front-loaded.

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 there are 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the meaning of the min/max price, the lang behavior, or what the response contains. It also introduces ambiguity with 'category' and 'brand' that is not resolved. For a tool with this complexity, the description is insufficient.

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?

While the schema has 100% parameter descriptions, the tool description adds confusion by listing 'category' and 'brand' as search dimensions, which are not separate parameters in the schema. The description does not clarify how query maps to these dimensions, and it fails to mention the lang and limit parameters that are documented in the schema. This reduces clarity rather than adding 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 clearly states the verb 'search', the resource 'products', and the intended audience 'Shoppingate customers'. It also lists search dimensions (title, category, budget, brand). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'search_products', and the mention of 'category' and 'brand' is not reflected in the schema, causing slight ambiguity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_products'. The phrase 'for Shoppingate customers' suggests a customer-facing context but is not explicitly contrasted with other search tools. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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