Search products

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds that results are paged with a total match count and that money values are integer cents, but it says nothing about result ordering, empty-result behavior, or matching case sensitivity.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with the search behavior front-loaded and the unit convention trailing. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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?

For a read-only, fully-documented, output-schema-backed search tool this covers what an agent needs to call it: inputs, paging, and the cents convention. Only sibling routing guidance is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that query matches name or SKU and category must be exact, which is mild value-add over the schema but nothing the schema doesn't already state.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (search the catalog) plus the match semantics: name or SKU fragment and/or exact category. That 'fragment' framing implicitly separates it from get_product's single-record fetch, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls short of the top mark.

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 conveys when the tool applies (fuzzy name/SKU lookup or exact category filtering) and that criteria can be combined, but it never says when not to use it or points to get_product for exact single-item retrieval. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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