pipedrive_products_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about permissions, rate limits, pagination depth, or whether the search is case-insensitive/substring-based, all of which matter for a search endpoint.

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?

A single tight sentence with the core purpose front-loaded. It is efficiently worded, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy.

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?

Five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description omits pagination behavior, the meaning of fields/exact_match, and result shape. For a search tool with this many knobs, more context is needed.

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 80%, so the schema already documents term, limit, cursor, and fields. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that baseline, and exact_match has no description anywhere.

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 (Search) and resource (products) with the match basis (name or code). It does not distinguish itself from pipedrive_products_list or pipedrive_products_get, which is why it falls short of a 5.

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?

No guidance on when to use search versus pipedrive_products_list (full listing) or pipedrive_products_get (single lookup). The agent must infer that search suits a name/code lookup when the ID is unknown.

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