search_products

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

The description states it returns a summary list and mentions the scope (Bowlly's cat food database). However, with no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention important behaviors such as partial matching, error handling, performance limits, or that it might miss ingredients beyond the 5th position in the ingredient list (which is only noted in parameter descriptions). The transparency is moderate but lacks depth beyond basic output type.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences. The first sentence states what the tool does, and the second provides usage guidance and links to a sibling. Every word serves a purpose, no redundancy or fluff. It is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is quite minimal. It does not explain how pagination (cursor/limit) works, how sorting (sortBy) affects results, or how to interpret the summary list (e.g., what fields are returned). While the input schema is thorough, the description alone lacks context for an agent to understand the full workflow flow, such as that search results are paginated or that ingredient searches have limitations. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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% description coverage with helpful details like enum values, max length, default values, and notes about limitations (e.g., ingredient preview). The description itself does not add additional meaning beyond listing the search dimensions (ingredients, health conditions, food form). Since the schema is already rich, a score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not need to compensate but also does not add extra 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 it searches Bowlly's cat food database by ingredients, health conditions, or food form. It explicitly says when to use it ('when the user asks to find, filter, or recommend cat foods') and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_product_detail, which provides full details. The verb 'search' and resource 'cat food database' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use this when the user asks to find, filter, or recommend cat foods.' It also tells when not to use this tool by directing to get_product_detail for full information about specific products. This clearly differentiates from the sibling tool, though it does not address other siblings like compare_products or analyze_nutrition, the guidance is sufficient for the primary decision point.

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