search_tools

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

With no annotations, the description fully explains the scoring mechanism (against meaningful keywords, ignoring stopwords) and that it supports both exact names and natural language. It does not explicitly state it's read-only, but for a search tool this is implied. No side effects are mentioned, but the behavior is sufficiently transparent.

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 well-structured with sections, bullet points, and examples. It is concise (no unnecessary sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, making it easy to read.

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 complexity (search across 494+ products), no output schema, and sibling tools, the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, and examples. It lacks details on sorting order or pagination, but for a search tool this is acceptable. It is fairly complete overall.

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% with both parameters described. The description adds significant value by explaining the query parameter accepts various types (name, keyword, use case) and provides examples. It also clarifies the limit default. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 software products by name, keyword, category, or natural language query, and specifies the returned fields. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning its use before get_tool or get_pricing when the slug is uncertain, and differentiates from list_categories by supporting queries.

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 'USAGE GUIDELINES' section explicitly states when to use the tool: to discover tools when slug is unknown, before get_tool/get_pricing, and for category browsing. It also explains natural language query behavior. This provides clear guidance and context relative to siblings.

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