search_live_products

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states it returns product name, brand, and ingredients, which is helpful. However, it does not mention any side effects, rate limits, or error conditions, leaving some gaps for a search tool.

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 extremely concise with only 4 sentences, each adding value. It front-loads the purpose and ends with constraints. No unnecessary words.

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?

Despite having no annotations, the description covers basic usage, output fields, and domain restriction. An output schema exists, so return value details are not needed. Parameter details are missing, but the tool is simple; overall, it is reasonably complete for an agent.

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 0%, meaning the input schema has no descriptions for parameters. The description does not explain the 'query' or 'max_results' parameters beyond implicit context. It fails to add meaning to the parameters, leaving them unclear.

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 searches Open Beauty Facts for real-time beauty product data. It distinguishes from siblings by noting it's for products not in the local database, while siblings like query_database and find_similar_products handle different tasks.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (for products not in local database, like CeraVe) and its domain limitation (beauty and personal care only). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool names, but the guidance is sufficient.

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