migros_search_products

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a page size cap (up to 36 products) and the currency of returned prices (TRY), which is real behavioral context. It does not cover the read-only nature, what happens at the end of results, total-count behavior, or any error/empty-result handling.

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 the core action, then sort options, then return characteristics. No filler or repetition; every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value structure need not be described, and the description still adds the page size and currency. Combined with full sort enumeration and query language guidance, it is nearly complete for a 3-parameter search tool; only pagination termination is unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it mostly does: it enumerates all seven accepted sort values (which the schema does not constrain at all) and specifies that query is a Turkish keyword with examples. Only 'page' is left implicit via the phrase 'per page' rather than explained directly.

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+resource (search Migros products by keyword) and scopes it to Turkish-language queries with concrete examples. It is clearly distinguishable from migros_get_product and migros_list_categories, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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: the reader infers this is for keyword-driven product discovery and that migros_get_product is for a single known item. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative, so an agent must reason about sibling selection on its own.

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