search_registry_products

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external-data reach are covered. The description adds that results are registry-scoped and where category IDs originate, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result size, or ordering beyond what the schema's limit/offset defaults imply.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the supporting detail about category ID provenance. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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, three-parameter browse tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers what matters: scope, the required parameter's domain, and where valid values come from. Minor gap in not describing result ordering or pagination semantics, but nothing blocking correct invocation.

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 the baseline would be 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by explaining that category_id is a Zola constant, giving a concrete example (544 = Kitchen), and pointing to the endpoint that enumerates valid values. That is real added meaning for the one required parameter.

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 ('Browse Zola products') plus scoping ('scoped to your registry'), which separates it from generic product/storefront searches in the sibling set. It stops short of naming an alternative, but the verb+scope combination is 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 supplies the crucial context for supplying category_id (a Zola constant, e.g. 544 = Kitchen, retrievable via GET /v3/categories). However it never states when to use this versus siblings like search_storefronts or add_registry_item, so usage is implied rather than guided.

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