search_products

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the inclusion of stock breakdown for multi-warehouse products, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it disclose potential limitations such as pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter, error handling, or permission requirements.

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 a brief two-sentence purpose statement followed by an Args list. It is appropriately sized for a tool with six parameters, and the key information is front-loaded. It is not overly verbose, though the Args block is necessary for completeness.

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?

The description covers the core purpose, all parameter semantics, and the stock-breakdown behavior. An output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere. However, it lacks explicit usage guidance (when to prefer this tool over siblings) and does not state that the operation is read-only, which is important for an agent to know. Overall it is adequate but has notable gaps in context.

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?

The description fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage by providing clear explanations for every parameter in the Args block. For example, query is defined as 'Término de búsqueda (clave o texto descriptivo)', cve_alm includes filtering logic ('stock > 0'), and status lists allowed values with defaults. This goes well beyond the bare schema and adds meaningful semantic context.

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 products in the ASPEL SAE catalog by key or description, and mentions the inclusion of stock breakdown per warehouse for multi-warehouse products. This is a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_product_detail or query_sae_read_only, but the general search function is unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions for choosing search_products over get_product_detail, get_stock_by_warehouse, or other siblings. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instruction.

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