search_products

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the burden. It discloses that the result is paginated, includes facets and metadata, and respects the page parameter. It does not disclose potential side effects, but as a read-only search, the absence of mutation cues is acceptable. It adds value by explaining the pagination metadata and facets, which is beyond the schema.

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, focused paragraph with clear details. It front-loads the core purpose and adds necessary specifics about pagination and facets. Every sentence contributes to the agent's understanding, with no fluff. It could be slightly more concise by splitting into two sentences, but it's efficient.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: search query, pagination, and response components. It doesn't explain the structure of facets or navigation links, but these are generic web concepts. It is sufficiently complete for selection and basic invocation, though it could benefit from specifying the default page number.

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 the parameters 'q' and 'page' are already well-documented. The description adds value by clarifying that 'page' controls pagination and that the result includes pagination metadata, linking it to the parameter. This is slightly above the baseline of 3 because it integrates the 'page' parameter meaning with the response.

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's purpose: searching for products on Carrefour France using a text query. It specifies the resource (products), the action (search), and the market context (Carrefour France), distinguishing it from related tools like autocomplete_search and get_products_by_query by focusing on keyword-based text search with pagination and facets.

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 for product search with a text query, and mentions pagination via the 'page' parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like get_products_by_query or get_products_by_gtins, nor does it state when not to use this tool. It provides clear context but lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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