search_products

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful non-obvious behavior: each page costs 1 credit, one page typically returns 20-40 products, and refinements must be discovered from a prior response. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 and front-loaded: what it returns, when to use it versus get_product_detail, and operational guidance on cost and filtering. Every section earns its place; there is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 10-parameter tool with no output schema and a large sibling set, the description is impressively complete. It covers purpose, expected outputs, cost model, pagination guidance, exclusion of alternatives, and the refinement discovery workflow. The remaining details are handled by the 100% schema coverage.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by explaining the relationship between keyword and url, recommending exclude_sponsored for organic analysis, and instructing users to first run a search and read the refinements field before passing refinement IDs. This is real semantic guidance beyond the 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?

The description opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Search Amazon by keyword or a full search/category URL') and enumerates concrete outputs (ASIN, title, price, rating, review count, Prime status, badges). It also differentiates itself from get_product_detail by explicitly stating when not to use it, so an agent can distinguish it from the closest sibling.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('market research, keyword analysis, and product discovery') and an explicit exclusion: if the user has an ASIN or product URL, do NOT search, use get_product_detail. It also gives practical guidance about page costs, result volumes, and how to discover valid refinement IDs before filtering.

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