search_products

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read behavior is already known. The description adds value by specifying the return fields (Id, Name, Brand, Price, availability) and the limit constraint (1-50). This is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value: search query hints, parameter explanation, and return usage. No fluff or repetition.

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's simple nature (2 params, output schema exists, no nested objects), the description is complete. It covers the search behavior, parameter semantics, return format, and downstream usage (get_product_details/set_basket_quantity). Users know exactly what to expect and how to proceed.

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 0%, but the description provides detailed semantics for both parameters: query is the search term (with language hint), and limit is the maximum number of results (with range 1-50). This fully compensates for the minimal schema and adds meaning beyond the type declarations.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Search the nemlig.com catalogue.' This is a specific verb (search) with a resource (catalogue) and differentiates from siblings like get_product_details or set_basket_quantity, which are for retrieval or mutation.

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?

Provides useful guidance on when to use this tool: as the entry point for searching, with a note that Danish terms work best. It also directs the user to use the returned Id with get_product_details or set_basket_quantity, implying the search is a precursor to those tools. No explicit exclusions, but clear context.

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