pipedrive_search_products

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the searchable fields (name, code, custom fields), which goes beyond the schema. It doesn't contradict annotations and provides additional context about the operation's scope. A minor gap is the lack of mention of the return format, but given the annotations, this is acceptable.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and scope. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward search operation.

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 has 6 parameters, all well-documented in the schema, and annotations cover safety. However, the description doesn't explicitly state that the tool returns a list of matching products or that it supports pagination (though cursor and limit hints indicate this). Without an output schema, the description could have mentioned the response nature to help an agent set expectations. The description is adequate but leaves some operational details to the schema.

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 100%, so parameters like 'term', 'limit', 'cursor', 'fields', 'exact_match', and 'include_fields' are already documented. The description adds extra meaning by explaining that the 'fields' parameter allows searching by name, code, or custom fields, and implies default behavior. This enhances understanding beyond the raw schema, particularly for the 'fields' 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?

The description states a specific action ('Search') on a specific resource ('products') and clarifies the search dimensions ('by name, code, or custom fields'). It clearly distinguishes from listing tools like pipedrive_list_products by the search intent. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling search tools (search_deals, search_persons) but the target resource 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 implies usage: if you need to find a product by a term, use this tool. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives like list_products for browsing or other entity-specific searches. There is no mention of exclusions or conditions that would route an agent to a different tool, leaving the decision to inference.

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