search_products

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

No annotations provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions downloading a feed (network operation) and case-insensitive substring search, but does not disclose side effects like authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it is read-only. Basic transparency but missing deeper implications.

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 overview followed by an Args list. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, the introductory sentence overlaps with the Args description, making it slightly redundant. Still, it is clear and not overly verbose.

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 adequately covers input parameters but lacks details on return format (only 'Returns matching products') and error handling. With no output schema, more details would be helpful. Given sibling tools, it does not differentiate usage or provide contextual cues for when to invoke this tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides detailed explanations for all four parameters: feed_url (Direct URL), query (case-insensitive substring match), field (lists allowed values), and limit (max products, default 20). This adds significant semantic value beyond the schema's bare types and titles.

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 downloads a product feed and searches for matching products. It specifies the verb (download and search), resource (product feed), and the operation (search by query). It distinguishes from siblings like 'download_feed' which likely just downloads, and other tools that deal with campaigns or coupons.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like 'download_feed' and 'list_campaigns' exist, but the description does not clarify that this tool is for searching within a specific feed, while others are for different purposes. No context on prerequisites or conditions.

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