search_products

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the key behavioral detail of return fields (prices, nutrition, stock status). The read-only nature is implied by 'Search', and the description adds useful context without contradicting any annotations. It doesn't mention pagination or error behavior, but for a simple search this is acceptable.

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 concise, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every sentence contributes value. The language tip is useful and directly actionable for the agent.

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 simple search tool with two well-schemaed parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, return contents, and query language guidance. It is complete enough for an agent to decide when and how to use it.

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 has 100% coverage for parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by providing concrete Estonian query examples (e.g., 'kana' for chicken), which clarifies the language hint already present in the schema. This enrichment earns a 4.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Selver.ee product catalog'), and states exactly what is returned (prices, nutrition per 100g, stock status). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling cart tools (add_to_cart, view_cart, remove_from_cart).

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 when to use it (searching the product catalog) and the sibling names make it obvious this is not for cart operations. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or exclude any use cases, so it falls short of a 5.

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