Search products

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and scope are covered. The description adds the shape of results (prices, availability, typed promotions), but since an output schema exists this is partly redundant and it says nothing about ordering, paging, or handling of unavailable products beyond the limit parameter.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the result fields; nothing is padded. The field list edges toward restating the output schema but remains compact and readable.

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?

With an output schema, full parameter coverage, and annotations, the definition supplies enough to call the tool correctly. The only real gap is guidance on choosing it over get_product, which would push it higher.

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 coverage is 100%, with query examples in French, the store enum pointing to list_stores, and limit bounded. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Searches') and resource ('the retailer's catalogue'), and enumerates returned fields, making the purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_product, which is a single-product lookup, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'Searches'; there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus get_product or other siblings, nor any exclusions. The reader can infer it is for discovery rather than retrieving one known product, but nothing guides that choice.

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