search_catalog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, read-only nature, authentication, rate limits, or any limitations. It only explains parameter semantics, which does not satisfy the need for behavioral transparency.

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, front-loads the purpose, and uses a clean docstring format. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or vague statements.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, the description lacks behavioral context (e.g., pagination, result ordering) and any prerequisites. For a search tool, this is a minor gap, but the overall completeness is good.

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 description provides rich detail for every parameter, including concrete examples and unit explanations (e.g., max_price in minor currency units, language as BCP 47). Since schema coverage is 0%, this completely compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, giving the agent clear invocation guidance.

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 opens with a specific verb 'Search' and resource 'products' across 'Shopify's global catalog', clearly defining the tool's function. It is unambiguous and distinct even without sibling tools.

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?

There are no sibling tools, so no differentiation is required. However, the description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool (e.g., 'use this for searching products') or when not to use it. It focuses entirely on parameter details, leaving usage context to be inferred.

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