search_products

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the response structure (list of product fields) and implicitly indicates pagination via the page parameter, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention rate limits, error behaviors, or any side effects. The transparency about the return payload is useful, but operational behavior remains understated.

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 concise and well-structured. The first sentence states the purpose, the second lists the returned fields and provides actionable chaining guidance. There is no redundant information, and the critical details are front-loaded.

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?

Even though an output schema exists (flag set to true), the description still provides a meaningful summary of the return fields, which is helpful. It also explains the relationship with related tools, which is valuable for chaining calls. However, it lacks details on pagination behavior (e.g., default page size, result limits), sorting options, or any distinction from search_suggestions. Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to fully specify return values, but the missing usage context brings the completeness down slightly.

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 already describes both parameters (query and page) with 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any additional meaning about parameter formats, constraints, or relationships beyond what the schema provides. The mention of using sku_id and model_id with other tools relates to the output, not the input parameters, so it does not enhance parameter understanding. This aligns with the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 action (search) and the resource (products on Decathlon NL). It lists the returned fields, which gives a concrete sense of scope. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling search_suggestions, leaving that differentiation implicit rather than stated.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_suggestions. The only hint is the instruction to use sku_id with get_product_details and model_id with get_reviews, which is a follow-up workflow rather than a selection criterion. The description does not state when not to use this tool or mention any exclusions.

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