Search products for a chat session, returning only approved fields based on the company and pricelist.
Search products for an enrolled chat, returning ONLY the scenario's allowlisted fields (confidential fields withheld by design). Uses the scenario's company + pricelist.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | Product name or code fragment | |
| chat_id | Yes | ||
| connection | No | default |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.31.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: filtering results to allowlisted fields and using scenario-specific company and pricelist. This gives the agent important expectations about data scope and confidentiality.
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 two concise sentences. It front-loads the primary action and result filtering, then adds contextual detail. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy.
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 no output schema, the description explains the primary input context (enrolled chat, scenario) and output behavior (allowlisted fields). It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and decide when to call it, though it omits potential error cases.
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 only 25% (only 'query' has a description). The tool description sheds light on 'chat_id' (enrolled chat) and hints at 'connection' (scenario's company+pricelist) but does not explain 'limit' or fully clarify all parameters. It partially compensates for the sparse schema.
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 action (search products), the context (for an enrolled chat), and specific behaviors (returning only allowlisted fields, using scenario's company and pricelist). It is specific enough to distinguish from general product search tools.
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 a specialized use case (enrolled chat, scenario-based) but does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when to prefer this over others. It provides contextual hints but lacks direct guidance on selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.