search_products

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. It only mentions 'search' but does not describe what the response looks like, whether results are ranked, if there is pagination, or if it is a read-only operation. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that immediately state the action and a helpful example. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information.

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?

The tool is simple with three documented parameters, and the description covers the search scope. However, it lacks any mention of the return format or how results are structured, which would be helpful since there is no output schema. For a basic search tool, it is mostly complete but leaves a small gap.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the query parameter accepts natural language, but it does not add semantics for max_price or min_price beyond their schema descriptions. Overall, schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 tool searches for products at The Bag Kenya by name, description, or style, providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool browse_products, which may also be used to find products, so it misses the full 5 for sibling differentiation.

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 usage hints by suggesting natural language queries like 'crop tee' or 'casual pants', which implies the intended input style. But it does not specify when to use search_products versus browse_products or other alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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