search_products

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: it returns the API's total match count plus up to limit (max 100) "slimmed" products and supports paging with skip. It hints that results are partial (slimmed) rather than full details, which matters for choosing product_details. It omits auth/permission needs and only implies a read-only nature.

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?

Front-loads the one-line purpose, then documents parameters, then the return shape and pagination in a tight block. Every line earns its place; the format is slightly listy but wastes no words.

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?

For a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential calling knowledge: filter semantics, the limit cap, and the paginated response shape. Gaps remain around sort and the read-only/no-auth assumptions, but nothing critical to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it documents query, category_id, on_sale_only, plus limit (max 100) and skip for paging. Only sort is left unexplained, though its enum values are largely self-describing. This is strong compensation for a zero-coverage 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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Search what the store stocks") and adds a distinguishing trait ("with live prices"), which separates it from siblings like product_details and price_check. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to prefer for a single-product lookup, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

It gives context on how to use the filters, including a useful cross-reference that category_id comes "from list_categories". However, it never states when to choose this tool over price_check or product_details, nor any exclusion conditions, so usage is implied rather than explicit.

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