Buscar produtos no catálogo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return shape as a product sheet without price and points to get_item for pricing, but it says nothing about permissions, result volume, or how limit/offset paging behaves, which matters for a discovery endpoint capped at 50 results per page.

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, zero waste: capability and query modes first, then the return-shape caveat with the alternative tool named. Nothing is redundant with the title or padded.

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 5-parameter, no-required, no-output-schema tool, the description compensates partly by describing the return content. But it omits pagination behavior, whether multiple filters are ANDed or ORed, and what an empty result means — gaps an agent would hit on the first call.

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 coverage is 60%, and the description reinforces the three meaningful inputs (q, product_identifier as GTIN, domain_id). It adds little beyond the schema, however, and leaves limit and offset entirely unexplained in both places, including the 50-item ceiling and the deep-paging bound.

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 concrete resource (produtos no catálogo MLB) and the three query modes it accepts: keywords, GTIN and domain. It differentiates itself from get_item by declaring it returns a price-free ficha, but it does not distinguish itself from other close siblings such as get_product, get_items or browse_category, which an agent could easily confuse with a keyword search.

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 only implied by the enumeration of input modes, plus one explicit routing rule: for price, use get_item with the listing id. There is no guidance on when to prefer get_product or browse_category over this search, nor on whether the query modes can be combined.

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