Search products

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results include price/merchant/buy link, filters are non-converting for currency, and the returned `ref` is meant to be passed into other tools. Pagination/result-count behavior (limit max 20) is left to the schema.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose then return shape then filters then chaining. No filler; it could be marginally sharper by folding the filter list and ref note together, but nothing is wasted.

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 9-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return contents, and most filters, which is adequate. It stops short on sort/limit semantics and any note about result-set sizing or pagination, which an agent would otherwise have to dig out of the schema.

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 56%, and the description only names the filter families (price range, currency, network, merchant) without covering sort, limit, or the query semantics. The parenthetical '(no conversion)' for currency is a genuinely useful semantic addition the schema lacks, but the undocumented params (sort, limit) remain unaddressed.

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 the loaded affiliate product feeds by keywords') and summarizes what comes back (price, merchant, buy link). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like compare_products or get_buy_link, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 by 'search ... by keywords', and 'Use the returned `ref` in other tools' gives useful downstream chaining guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs compare_products (which presumably also queries products) or a statement of when this is the wrong tool.

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