Search Sixty60 products

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

Annotations only cover read-only safety, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: results are restricted to stores serving the current delivery address, and prices are reported in cents (ZAR), which directly affects how an agent interprets and presents results. It also states the practical linkage between the returned product id and sixty60_cart_add. It does not mention what happens when no delivery address is configured, nor any result-count/pagination behavior beyond the schema defaults.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is searched and scoped, then price units, then the follow-up action — every sentence carries information. Minor cost: "Search the catalogue for the stores serving the current delivery address" momentarily reads as if stores, not products, are being searched.

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 3-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and a readOnlyHint, the essentials are present: what is searched, the address scoping, price units, and how the result is consumed. Without an output schema the description could say a bit more about what each result contains, and the address prerequisite is left implicit, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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%, so page, limit, and query are already documented in the schema, including a search-phrase example. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond confirming that the search is scoped to the current delivery address's stores; the baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource ("Search the catalogue") and adds a meaningful scope qualifier: only stores serving the current delivery address. It is distinguishable from sixty60_product (detail lookup) and sixty60_cart_add (which it explicitly hands off to), though it never names a sibling as the alternative for a different kind of lookup.

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 intended workflow is implied and partly spelled out — "Use the returned product id with sixty60_cart_add" tells the agent what to do after a hit. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus siblings such as sixty60_product, sixty60_past_purchases, or sixty60_cart, and no stated prerequisite that a delivery address must already be set.

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