Search products

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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only, idempotent, open-world profile, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: result granularity is one card per product-color, so the same id legitimately repeats, and each card carries price, discount, color and in-stock sizes. It doesn't mention rate limits or result-count caps beyond what the schema already says.

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?

Three tight sentences: what is searched, what comes back, and what to do next. The card-granularity caveat is placed immediately after the return description where it matters, with no filler.

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 read-only 10-parameter search with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the return shape, granularity and follow-up path. Pagination limits and any result truncation behavior are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable but leaves minor 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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by tying natural-language query intents to filters (price ceilings in the examples correspond to min_price/max_price and 'cheapest' to the sort enum). It stops short of mapping examples to explicit parameter names.

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 Banimode fashion products by keyword') and even describes the shape of the result ('priced cards with discount, color and sizes in stock'). It differentiates from bm_product as a follow-up drill-down, but leaves bm_browse, bm_deals and bm_categories undifferentiated, so an agent can't fully route between the search-family siblings from this text 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?

Gives concrete usage scenarios ('cheapest white sneakers', 'men's jeans under 1M') and an explicit next-step rule: call bm_product with the id for full size/stock/color detail. It does not state when to prefer bm_browse or bm_deals instead, so the when-not guidance is missing.

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