search_products

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It discloses nothing about side effects, return format, pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or limitations. The word 'search' only indicates the operation type, not behavioral traits. This is a severe gap for a tool that may produce complex results.

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, compact sentence that conveys the core purpose without filler words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word earns its place. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool has low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), but the description is still incomplete. It does not mention what the search returns (e.g., product list, match scores), any sorting/filtering options, or constraints like pagination limits. Given no output schema, the description should at least hint at the expected result shape or scope, but it does not.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage for the single 'query' parameter with a clear description ('The product or keyword to search for'). The tool description's phrase 'by keyword' effectively mirrors the schema's parameter semantics, adding no new meaning. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 searches Amazon products by keyword. The verb 'search' and resource 'Amazon products' are specific, and the scope is defined as 'by keyword', distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'get_product' which likely retrieves a single product by ID. This is a clear purpose statement.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention situations where 'get_product' would be more appropriate, nor does it describe any exclusions or prerequisites. The description simply states the action without contextual usage instructions.

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