rami_levy_search_products

Does 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 that the tool returns productId, name, and price, and that it accesses a 'real catalog' (implying authoritative data). However, it doesn't explicitly state that it's read-only or has no side effects, though this is implied by the search nature. It adds useful context without contradicting anything.

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 compact and efficiently organized. It opens with the core action, then lists the return fields, and closes with a crucial usage note. Every sentence adds value 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?

For a search tool with no output schema, the description provides essential information: what is returned (productId, name, price) and when to use it (before add_item). The missing detail of the 'limit' parameter is a minor gap, but since it's in the schema and optional, it doesn't compromise the overall completeness. The description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the 'limit' parameter at all. The 'query' parameter is obvious from the tool name and description ('Search'), but the description fails to mention that 'limit' constrains the number of results, its range, or its optionality. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: it searches Rami Levy's real catalog and returns productId, name, and price for each hit. It distinguishes itself from siblings like rami_levy_add_item by explicitly noting that a productId is never invented, making it clear this is the source for valid product IDs.

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?

It provides explicit usage guidance: 'Call this before rami_levy_add_item'. This tells the agent when to use this tool, and the phrase 'a productId is never invented' reinforces that this is the only way to obtain a valid productId for adding items. This is clear and actionable.

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