vtex_search_products

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Search products in catalog' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this is a safe, non-destructive action, what the response format might be (e.g., paginated results), or any rate limits or authentication requirements. For a tool with 8 parameters and no annotation coverage, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. However, it's arguably too concise given the tool's complexity (8 parameters and no annotations), as it could benefit from additional context about usage or behavior to be fully helpful.

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 complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., read-only nature, response format), usage guidelines compared to siblings, and any prerequisites. While the schema covers parameters well, the description fails to provide the broader context needed for effective tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all 8 parameters are documented in the input schema with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'query' interacts with 'fq' or provide examples). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 in catalog' clearly states the verb ('Search') and resource ('products in catalog'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'vtex_list_products' or 'vtex_get_product', which also retrieve product information, leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific search functionality versus other product retrieval methods.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'vtex_list_products' (likely for listing all products) and 'vtex_get_product' (likely for retrieving a specific product), there's no indication that this tool is for filtered searches based on query parameters. This omission could lead to incorrect tool selection by an AI agent.

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