search_registry_products

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

Annotations already indicate read-only nature (readOnlyHint: true), but the description adds value by specifying that results are scoped to the user's registry and that category IDs are external constants. It does not contradict annotations. However, it could mention behavior for invalid IDs or empty results.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence delivers the core purpose, and the second provides essential context for the category_id parameter. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded for quick understanding.

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 the tool's simplicity and full schema coverage, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, how to get category IDs, and the registry scope. However, since no output schema exists, it would be beneficial to briefly describe the response format (e.g., product list fields) to enhance completeness.

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, but the description adds significant semantic meaning for the required 'category_id' parameter (constant IDs from a specific endpoint). This helps the agent understand how to obtain valid values. For 'limit' and 'offset', the description adds nothing beyond the schema.

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 browses Zola products within a category scope to the user's registry. It provides a specific verb 'browse' and resource 'Zola products', and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_card_catalog' by specifying the product-and-registry context.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (browsing registry products by category) and hints at how to find valid category IDs via an API endpoint. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools like 'search_storefronts' or 'search_vendors', which would strengthen guidance.

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