products_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Search products' reveals nothing about whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it supports pagination, rate limits, or what the response format looks like. This is completely inadequate for a tool with 6 parameters.

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 extremely concise at just two words, which could be appropriate if it were more informative. However, this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It's front-loaded but lacks substance.

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 tool with 6 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and complex filtering capabilities (as evidenced by the filterGroups structure), the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about the tool's behavior, parameters, or output, making it impossible for an agent to use this tool effectively.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description 'Search products' adds no information about any parameters - it doesn't mention filtering, sorting, pagination, or any of the actual capabilities revealed by the parameter names. This fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 'Search products' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. While it indicates the verb 'search' and resource 'products', it lacks specificity about what kind of search this performs (e.g., full-text, filtered, paginated) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'products_list' or 'products_read'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools related to products (products_list, products_read, products_create, etc.), but the description offers no context about when this search tool is appropriate versus those other options.

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