products_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 but offers nothing beyond the basic action. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether results are paginated, what format results return, or any rate limits or constraints. This leaves the agent with no understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 maximally concise with just two words. While this represents severe under-specification, from a pure conciseness perspective, there is zero wasted language or unnecessary elaboration.

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 complex search tool with 6 parameters (including nested filter objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about the tool's purpose beyond its name, no usage guidance, no behavioral context, and no parameter semantics. This leaves the agent unable to effectively use the 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?

With 6 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no information about any parameters. The schema defines complex filtering capabilities (filterGroups with multiple operators), sorting, pagination, and field selection, but the description 'Search products' gives no hint about these capabilities or how to use them effectively.

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 'Search products' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It specifies the verb 'search' and resource 'products' but provides no detail about scope, functionality, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'products_list' or 'products_read'.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools for products (archive, batch operations, create, list, read, update), but the description offers no indication of when search is appropriate versus list or read operations.

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