search_products

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool performs a search; it does not mention whether it is read-only, how it handles pagination (e.g., 'limit'/'offset' parameters), or any side effects. The phrase 'objective product and ingredient filters' hints at query capabilities but lacks specifics about return behavior or constraints.

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 one concise sentence, but it is under-specified for a tool with 14 parameters and no other documentation. While there is no fluff, the extreme brevity leaves out essential context, making it only partially 'appropriately sized.'

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 complexity (14 parameters, no annotations, no schema description coverage), the description is insufficient. It provides a high-level purpose but does not explain filtering capabilities, result format, or usage context. An output schema exists, but the description alone is too thin for an agent to understand the tool's full scope.

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 schema has 14 parameters with zero description coverage, and the tool description does not compensate. It only generically refers to 'product and ingredient filters,' which does not explain any specific parameter (e.g., 'upc', 'brands', 'include_ingredients'). The description adds no meaning beyond the raw parameter names and types in the schema.

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 function: 'Search supplement labels using objective product and ingredient filters.' The verb 'Search' is specific to the resource 'supplement labels,' and the mention of filters differentiates it from sibling tools like 'get_product' or 'compare_products.' This is a clear and distinguishing purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_product' or 'compare_products.' There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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