search_product

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral details: results are scoped by the model-attached visibility policy, and filters match by equality. However, it doesn't mention potential limits, ordering, or return format, which would improve transparency for a search operation.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. It avoids repetition and is appropriately sized.

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 simple search tool with three optional filters and no output schema, this description provides the essential information: what it searches, how filters work, and session scoping. It doesn't explain pagination or result limits, but these are not necessarily critical for this tool's usage. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for most use cases.

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 schema has three parameters (id, name, stock) with no individual descriptions, so the description's statement that all filters are optional and match by equality adds meaningful collective semantics. It does not, however, provide per-parameter details beyond types already in the schema, so overall parameter guidance is moderate.

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 searches for Product objects from the ERP item master, using a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Product objects'). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_product or aggregate_product, the name and scope make its purpose unambiguous.

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 explains that all filter fields are optional and match by equality, giving clear context on how to use the search. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_product (for single fetch) or aggregate_product (for analytics), so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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