search_product

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only ('Read'), scoped to the session ('visible to this session'), and returns objects suitable for client-side filtering. It does not describe pagination or possible failure modes, but for a zero-parameter read tool, these are reasonable gaps and the core behavior is transparent.

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 sentences, 27 words, zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the downstream workflow is stated economically. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it reads, the visibility scope, and how the result should be used. It does not describe the exact return structure, but given the tool's simplicity and the empty schema, the description is largely complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 has zero properties, so schema coverage is 100% and the baseline is 4. The description reinforces that no server-side filtering is supported by instructing to filter client-side, which aligns with the empty schema. It adds no unnecessary parameter information.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read Product objects visible to this session.' It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by explicitly targeting Product objects and by describing the returned set as session-visible products. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with get_product or other alternatives, so it earns 4 rather than 5.

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 gives clear usage context: fetch Product objects, filter them in client-side code, then pass selected IDs to pivot, set, or aggregate tools. This is an explicit workflow that tells the agent when this tool fits. It does not name excluded alternatives or state when not to use it, but the workflow guidance is concrete and useful.

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