Search products

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), and the description adds behaviour the agent could not infer: no-match queries silently degrade to unrelated items, so titles must be verified. It also discloses currency (Toman) and delivery region (Tehran), though it says nothing about rate limits or result-size limits.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose before the chaining and fallback caveats. The parenthetical sibling references are efficient; nothing is filler, though the filter list in sentence one partially duplicates the schema.

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?

With 11 parameters and no output schema, the description does useful duty by naming the returned `id`, `product_id` and first-page `brands` fields. It still leaves pagination behaviour, total result counts and the shape of the fallback result undescribed, which matters for a search tool the agent will chain from.

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 11 parameters are already well documented; the description mostly restates the filter categories at a high level. The one real addition is cross-call provenance for the brands filter (ids harvested from an earlier response's `brands` array), which reinforces what the schema says but does not extend it.

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 Snapp! Shop products by name') plus the exact filter axes, which cleanly separates it from ss_category (browse) and ss_product (detail fetch). The sibling differentiation is explicit through the id/product_id handoff.

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?

'Use first to find a product' gives a clear entry-point rule and names the downstream tools each returned id feeds. It stops short of saying when to prefer ss_category, ss_filters or ss_suggest instead, so it is strong routing guidance but not a full when/when-not matrix.

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