Search products

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's added value is the broad title+description matching behavior and the note that out_of_stock_matches counts sold-out items. That is genuinely useful beyond structured fields, though it doesn't cover pagination limits or result ordering nuances beyond what the schema states.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and routed alternatives in four tight sentences with no filler. Slightly dense with sibling references, but each clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out, and the description still flags the one non-obvious return field (out_of_stock_matches). Combined with full schema coverage and clear sibling routing, nothing needed to call this tool is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by clarifying that matching spans both title and description (which shapes how the query parameter behaves) and hinting at the in-stock-first listing behavior. This edges above the schema-only baseline.

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 (search) and resource (Asal Banoo products) and immediately names the fields returned (price, discount, stock, rating). It explicitly differentiates itself from siblings ab_find_cheapest, ab_browse, and ab_product.

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?

Gives concrete trigger phrases ('price of X', 'do you have X') and routes to alternatives with the exact conditions that select each: ab_find_cheapest for the cheapest match, ab_browse for a whole category/brand, ab_product for details and variants.

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