run_zalando_products_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return fields and the cost model ('1 point per returned record'), which are important operational traits. It does not state that the tool is read-only, how pagination behaves, or any rate-limit context.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded and waste-free: first the purpose and filters, then the return payload and cost. Nothing redundant or vague.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly fills the gap by listing return fields. It also notes the per-record cost. It omits pagination behavior (start_page, max_items) and any read-only safety note, which would be helpful for a 9-parameter search tool with no annotations.

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 schema already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description repeats the filter categories (brand, size, colour, price range, sort) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Search Zalando products by keyword'. This is clear and distinguishes it from generic search tools. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like run_zalando_products, run_zalando_products_related, or run_zalando_brands_products, so a full 5 is not warranted.

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 ('Search ... by keyword with optional ... filters') but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. An agent must infer that this is the keyword-search entry point versus the other Zalando tools.

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