Rechercher des produits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true. The description adds pagination behavior (defaults, max) but does not significantly expand beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise, uses a clear Args/Returns structure, and front-loads the main purpose. However, it redundantly repeats parameter details already in the schema.

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 purpose, parameters, and return type. With an existing output schema, it does not need to detail return fields. The inaccuracy in parameter values is a minor gap.

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 100%, but the description provides inaccurate default and max values for pageSize (says default 20, max 100; schema says default 30, max 500). This contradiction undermines reliability.

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 it searches products by keywords with pagination. The tool name and title align, and it distinguishes itself from other entity search tools (e.g., candidates, companies) in the sibling list.

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 implies usage for product search via keywords but does not explicitly state when to use it versus other search tools (e.g., boond_candidates_search). No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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