search_products

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It successfully identifies the external dependency ('frisco.pl') and return data content ('prices'), but omits operational details like rate limits, authentication requirements, or behavior when no matches are found.

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, efficient sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action (searches), specifies the domain (frisco.pl), and concludes with the return value (matches with prices), demonstrating excellent information density.

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 2-parameter search tool without output schema, the description adequately covers the essential behavior. It appropriately mentions price data (critical for shopping context) but could strengthen completeness by hinting that results likely include product identifiers needed for sibling cart operations.

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 both 'query' and 'topN' fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation for high-coverage schemas.

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 provides a specific verb ('Searches'), resource ('frisco.pl for products'), and output details ('returns top matches with prices'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling 'get_product_info' by emphasizing the search/matching functionality rather than specific product 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 description implies usage context (finding products with prices) but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives like 'get_product_info'. The agent must infer that this is for discovery while 'get_product_info' is for specific product details.

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