search_products

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context the annotations don't: matching is case-insensitive and requires every word to match across four fields, and it names the return shape (product_id, name, variant, SKU, retail prices). It omits that inactive products are excluded by default.

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?

Three short sentences: what it searches, what it returns, what to call next. No filler, and the core capability is front-loaded.

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 3-param read-only search with an output schema, the description covers matching semantics and next steps well. The gaps are the two optional parameters (limit, include_inactive), which affect whether the agent sees all matches or only active products.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains query semantics (fields searched, case-insensitivity, all-words-must-match), but says nothing about limit (default 25, i.e. pagination/truncation risk) or include_inactive, which materially changes results.

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 and the exact searchable fields (name, variant name, SKU, barcode). Combined with the follow-up routing to get_inventory/get_product, an agent can distinguish this from list_products or list_inventory_levels without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent what to do after a hit (get_inventory for stock, get_product for detail), which is useful sequencing guidance. It stops short of naming when NOT to use this — e.g. list_products for enumeration or get_product_family for grouping — despite those siblings existing.

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