search_products

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose non-obvious behavior: results are region-scoped by account when logged in and fall back to the guest location otherwise, and store_type switches the assortment between ONLINE and OFFLINE. It omits anything about auth requirements for logged-in region resolution, error behavior, or result caching, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then location semantics, then a clean per-parameter Args list, so scannability is high. Slightly wasteful: the opening field enumeration ("name, price, unit price...") overlaps with what the output schema already conveys.

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 explained, and the description covers everything else an agent needs to call correctly: query format, pagination contract, sort/direction values, filter shape, assortment switch, and location resolution. Nothing material is left missing for a 7-parameter search.

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%, so the description has to do all the work and does: it gives query examples, the 1-50 limit range with default 10, the offset/next_offset pagination idiom, the full sort enum (relevance | price | price_per_unit | discount_percentage | brand), asc/desc direction, concrete filter examples, and the ONLINE/OFFLINE store_type values. This turns seven undocumented schema fields into an actionable contract.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Search the Migros catalogue") and enumerates returned fields (name, price, unit price, promotion, stock), which is more than the bare name gives. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the sibling search_products_guest, which is the one adjacent tool an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: region resolution is described and set_location is cross-referenced, and product_filters is pointed to for facet ids. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not versus search_products_guest, autocomplete, category_products, or brand_products, which is the main routing decision an agent faces.

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