search_products

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It states that the tool returns matching products with all variants, which is a clear behavioral promise. Being a 'Search' operation, read-only behavior is implied, and no side effects are expected. It does not discuss rate limits or pagination, but these are not critical for a search tool.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the action (Search), resource (VNDLY products and variants), searchable fields, and return outcome. No filler or repetition.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value ('products with all variants'). It also clarifies the scope of search across fields. The tool's simplicity and the completeness of the input schema make this description sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions searchable fields (name, description, category, SKU) that map to the 'q' and 'category' parameters, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The description does not compensate for any ambiguity.

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 searches VNDLY products and their variants by name, description, category, or SKU, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle orders and stock alerts. The verb 'Search' and specific resource are explicit.

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 when to use the tool (to search products) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives. However, siblings are for orders and stock alerts, so the context makes the intended usage obvious. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, hence slight deduction.

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