Search products

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only restates the tool's function without revealing anything beyond the name: no mention of read-only nature, pagination, result format, rate limits, or side effects. This adds no value beyond the tool name itself.

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 concise sentence with the main verb front-loaded and filter criteria in parentheses. It is efficient and logically structured, though it could benefit from a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It fails to explain parameter semantics, return values, pagination behavior, or how it differs from similar listing tool rms_all_products. An agent cannot reliably select and invoke this tool with such limited context.

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?

The input schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description only clarifies one of them: genre_id ('ジャンル'). It does not explain offset (pagination), item_url, or search_type, leaving the agent to guess their purpose. This significantly under-serves the agent's need to correctly invoke the tool.

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 states '商品検索' (product search), a clear verb+resource, and adds specific filter criteria (管理番号・商品名・ジャンル) that distinguish it from sibling tools like rms_get_product or rms_all_products. It lacks explicit naming of alternatives but is specific enough for basic differentiation.

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 implied through the filterable fields (management number, product name, genre), suggesting it is for searching with criteria. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., rms_get_product for a single product, rms_all_products for full list), nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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