search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool returns a single 'best match' with specific fields, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention potential side effects, authentication needs, or matching behavior (e.g., fuzzy vs exact), leaving gaps.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences: one for purpose and one for output. Every word serves a purpose, and it is not a tautology. However, it could be slightly more structured by directly tying output fields to the tool's behavior.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, so the description should cover parameter semantics and usage constraints. It only covers purpose and output briefly, leaving the agent uninformed about required inputs and edge cases. This is insufficient for confident tool selection and invocation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It fails to explain the meaning or expected values of 'q', 'diet', or 'sale'. The agent would have to infer these from parameter names alone, which is insufficient.

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 a specific action ('Search products') and the expected output ('best match with SKU, price, unit pricing'), which distinguishes it from generic tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'search_batch' or 'offers', so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, without mentioning appropriate contexts, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'deals' or 'price'.

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