Search products

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does state the behavior ('free-text search') and the output fields, but it does not disclose matching semantics, empty-result behavior, authentication needs, or rate limits. The core behavior is visible, but edge-case behavior is not.

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 tight sentences. The first states the action and output; the second gives the follow-up workflow. There is no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 search tool with a well-described schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what is searched, what fields are returned, and how it relates to get_product. Without an output schema, listing the returned fields is valuable. A small gap is the lack of guidance on when to prefer browsing tools over search.

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%, and each parameter already has meaningful descriptions with defaults and enum values. The tool description reinforces that 'search' is free-text but adds no new parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Search the store catalog by free-text term.' It also lists the returned fields (SKU, name, price, stock status, image) and distinguishes itself from get_product by positioning this as the discovery step. This is clear and non-tautological.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to discover products before fetching full details with get_product,' which gives an agent a clear workflow context. It does not mention alternative search/browse tools like browse_categories or get_category_products, but the free-text nature is implied well enough.

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