search_products

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that only in-stock products are returned and lists the output fields, which is useful. However, it does not mention pagination, result limits, or behavior when multiple filters are combined. For a search tool, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and then elaborates with parameter usage. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool is a simple search with three optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers the returned fields, filtering options, and the special slug use case. It does not mention optionality or combination behavior, but for the tool's complexity it is reasonably complete.

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 input schema already describes all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving concrete examples for type values and clarifying the slug's purpose for single-product lookup, plus describing search semantics. This exceeds the schema alone.

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 in-stock products in the catalog and lists the returned fields (name, price, type, availability). It distinguishes the action from sibling tools like get_prices or check_availability by focusing on catalog search, though it does not explicitly reference alternatives.

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 clear usage context: filter by type (with examples) or name search, and pass slug for single-product lookup. It does not name alternative tools or give explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the instructions are sufficiently clear for common use cases.

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