Search the store

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: exactly what a product card contains, that prices are in US cents per licence tier, that `owned` reflects the caller's existing tier, and that results are cursor-paginated via nextCursor. It does not describe ranking behavior or empty-result behavior, but it is substantially more informative than the annotations alone.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then the return shape. Every clause carries useful information about fields, pricing units, ownership, and pagination; there is no filler.

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?

For a 10-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description does a good job specifying the return shape, price units, ownership semantics, and pagination. It could say more about result ordering and how multiple filters interact, but an agent has enough to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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 90%, so the schema already explains most parameters, including examples for query, shelf, style, and format. The description reinforces pagination via nextCursor and clarifies that `owned` is a returned field rather than an input, but adds little parameter meaning beyond what is already documented.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Search the catalogue') and immediately describes the returned product cards, making the operation unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_product or list_shelves, which keeps it short of a 5, but the search framing is distinct enough for an agent.

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?

Usage is implied: this is the tool for finding products by query or filters. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer list_shelves, get_product, or recommend, nor on how filters combine. The schema hint that shelf slugs come from list_shelves helps, but the description itself does not route the agent among alternatives.

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