search_products

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds real operational context on top: a scan of up to 200 mixed candidates, the warning that upstream totals are not product counts, and that partial detail failures are flagged per product. These are exactly the caveats an agent needs to interpret results without panicking at totals or missing degraded entries. It does not describe return shape or rate behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Five short, front-loaded sentences with almost no filler; the scope and constraints come first and the caveats follow. The 'Default 10, max 50 results' clause duplicates the schema and is the main removable element.

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 two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers candidate scanning, result caps, and partial-failure marking, which is a solid baseline. However, with no output schema it should sketch the return shape of 'offers and availability summaries' and say nothing about how query matching works, leaving an agent guessing at both ends.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and largely does not. The limit bounds it states ('Default 10, max 50 results') merely restate the schema's default and maximum, and the required query parameter receives no explanation of accepted syntax, matching behavior, or whether it supports keywords versus product names.

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 with scope: 'Find Superzoo products in Slovakia, with public online EUR offers and availability summaries.' That is far more than the bare name, and the final sentence about variant-specific IDs hints at the boundary with get_product_availability. It stops short of naming the siblings explicitly, so an agent still infers the split.

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 establishes the search/discovery context and hints that stock lookups belong elsewhere ('Use variant-specific product IDs for stock lookups'), which is implicit routing toward get_product_availability. There is no explicit 'use X instead when Y' statement and no guidance on how this differs from get_product for fetching a single product's details.

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