Search Foran

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: the search spans only live areas, and the result shape is ids intended for `fetch`. It still omits result limits, pagination, and what an empty result looks like, so a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the return-value hint second. Every clause carries information; the area parenthetical is slightly incidental but still conveys real scope.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema, read-only search tool, the description covers purpose, geographic scope, and the follow-up call. It is incomplete on query semantics and on how it differs from the near-identical `foran_search_products` sibling, both of which an agent needs before calling.

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% and the single `query` parameter is documented nowhere. The description never says what `query` matches (product name, category, store, fuzzy vs exact, language), so it fails to compensate for the schema gap on the only input that matters.

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 and resource ("Search Foran products") plus the scope ("all live areas (Bahria Town Karachi and Hyderabad)"), which is more than a restatement of the name. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from the sibling tool `foran_search_products`, which by name appears to do the same thing, so an agent cannot confidently pick between them.

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?

"Returns ids usable with fetch" implies a two-step workflow (search here, then call `fetch` with the ids), which is genuine but implicit usage guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no mention of `foran_search_products` as the alternative, which is the most consequential omission given how similar the two names are.

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