prom_search_products

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the meaningful trait of dual-source retrieval with an automatic DuckDuckGo fallback. It omits other operational facts an agent needs, such as auth requirements (no-auth DDG vs. direct Prom), rate limits, or failure modes when the fallback also fails.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the fallback condition. Nothing is wasted, though the fallback detail could be seen as secondary to the core purpose.

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 an 8-parameter, dual-source tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the mechanism but not the return shape (no output schema to compensate) or the interaction between client-side filters and pagination. It is adequate but leaves real gaps.

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 63%; the description adds no parameter-level meaning at all. The undocumented params (sort, limit, offset) are standard self-explanatory enums/integers with defaults, so the schema gap is tolerable, but the description contributes zero semantic value beyond the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search Prom.ua ... Product JSON-LD") and even discloses the retrieval mechanism. However, it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling prom_search_url or prom_saved_search_run, leaving an agent to infer the difference from the name alone.

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 explains how the search executes (SSR then DuckDuckGo fallback) but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over prom_search_url or prom_saved_search_run, and no prerequisites are stated. Usage is only weakly implied by the name and the source param.

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