fo_search_products

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 indicates the tool returns lightweight product rows and requires certain parameters, but it does not discuss side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or pagination behavior. The description adds some value by specifying the required parameter condition.

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 with two sentences that front-load the tool's purpose and key requirement. Every word contributes to understanding, with no redundant information.

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?

Given the tool has 10 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides minimal context about search behavior, pagination (page, pageSize), price filters, or return format. It covers the essential constraint (required parameters) but lacks completeness for a complex search tool.

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 60%, which is moderate. The description groups some parameters (cid, name, manufacturer, UPCorEANs) as required together, adding context beyond the schema. However, it does not elaborate on the meaning or usage of the remaining six parameters, which are only described in the schema.

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 it searches the FlexOffers product catalog and specifies the required input categories (cid, name, manufacturer, or UPCorEANs). It also mentions the output type ('lightweight product rows'), distinguishing it from the full version sibling. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like fo_search_products_full.

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?

The description provides guidance on when to use the tool by stating the requirement for at least one of the listed parameters. However, it does not explicitly exclude any scenarios or mention alternatives such as fo_search_products_full for more complete results.

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