search_products_guest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose one genuinely important behavior (no auth token is ever sent), which is exactly the kind of fact the schema cannot express. Beyond that it is silent on pagination semantics, default store_type behavior, sort/direction interaction, and any rate limiting or result set differences versus the authenticated search.

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 short sentences with the differentiating fact front-loaded; nothing is padded. The 'same arguments as search_products' clause is efficient in word count but substitutes a cross-reference for information, which is the one structural weakness.

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, but for a 7-parameter tool with zero annotation and zero schema-description coverage the description is too thin. Key defaults and the meaning of filters, sort, and store_type are left entirely to inference or to reading another tool's definition.

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% across 7 parameters and the description compensates only by saying 'same arguments as search_products', forcing the agent to open a different tool's schema. Ambiguous fields such as store_type (defaulted to 'ONLINE'), direction, and the free-form filters object get no meaning at all.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('product search') and, crucially, the qualifier 'Anonymous (never sends a token)', which is what separates it from the sibling search_products. An agent can tell the two apart on auth behavior, though the definition of the resource itself is delegated to the sibling rather than described.

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?

'Anonymous' and 'never sends a token' imply the condition that selects this tool (unauthenticated / no-session context), and pointing at search_products gives a reference point. But it never says explicitly when to prefer this over search_products or what the tradeoff is (e.g., reduced personalization, missing member pricing).

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