search_productsSearches the Picnic grocery catalogue by query and returns product IDs, names, prices in cents, unit sizes, and unit prices to help select items for a cart.
Search the Picnic catalogue. Returns id, name, price in cents, unit size and unit price.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | Search term, e.g. 'haferflocken' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds value by disclosing the returned fields (id, name, price in cents, unit size, unit price), which is genuinely useful since there is no output schema, but says nothing about result limits, pagination or match behaviour.
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, zero filler, with purpose front-loaded and the return shape following immediately. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
Listing return fields partially compensates for the missing output schema, and the annotations cover safety. But for a tool sitting among recipe and ingredient siblings, the description never clarifies the domain boundary and leaves the limit parameter and matching behaviour unexplained.
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 coverage is 50%: query is documented with an example, but limit has no description and the description adds nothing about it — not even that it caps result count up to 30. The description also gives no hint about query semantics such as language, partial matching or case sensitivity.
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 ("Search the Picnic catalogue") plus the exact return shape, so the agent knows this is a product lookup. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling search_recipes or find_ingredients, which an agent could plausibly confuse with it.
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 statement of when to use this instead of find_ingredients or search_recipes, and no note that it searches products rather than recipes beyond the ambiguous word "catalogue". The only routing signal is the tool name itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.