Search Alko Products

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context by specifying the catalog size (~12,000 products) and listing return fields, which helps set expectations for result volume and format. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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, dense sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, scope, filtering parameters, and return values without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 search tool with rich annotations (read-only, idempotent) and 100% schema coverage, the description provides adequate context by detailing the catalog scope and return structure. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from mentioning pagination behavior or result limits, though the schema covers 'limit' and 'offset' parameters.

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%, with detailed parameter documentation in the schema itself. The description mentions filtering capabilities ('Filter by name, type, country, price, alcohol%') and return fields, but adds minimal semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the comprehensive schema.

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 specific action ('Search'), resource ('Finnish Alko alcohol catalog'), and scope ('~12,000 products'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_product' (single product retrieval) and 'get_recommendations' (personalized suggestions) by emphasizing broad filtering capabilities.

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 implies usage through the mention of filtering parameters and return fields, suggesting it's for general catalog exploration. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_product' for specific items or 'sync_products' for data updates, leaving some ambiguity about optimal use cases.

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