search_products

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains that the search is semantic (not keyword-based) and describes the output format, including a cosine similarity score with a threshold interpretation (~0.8 = strong match). This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent interpret results.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and immediately explain the distinguishing feature (semantic matching). It also includes the key output detail (similarity score and threshold) without any fluff. Every sentence earns its place, making it an efficient and well-structured definition.

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?

The description is complete for an agent to call the tool correctly: it explains the semantic matching behavior, the return fields (price, stock, similarity score), and the threshold for a strong match. An output schema exists, so the return structure is further documented. The only minor omission is a mention of result ordering or pagination, but the limit parameter is described in the schema, so this is not a critical gap.

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 input schema provides full descriptions for all three parameters (query, limit, category) with a 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already includes; it mentions the query concept implicitly but does not clarify limit or category behavior. Thus it adds no extra parameter semantics.

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 verb (semantic search) and resource (products), and highlights the distinctive feature that it matches meaning even without shared keywords. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which are focused on orders, sales, top products, and low stock alerts, all non-search utilities.

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 implies usage for semantic product discovery but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. It mentions 'even without shared keywords' which suggests a fuzzy-match use case, but no explicit guidance or exclusions are given. Since the siblings are clearly different (reporting/analytics vs. search), the lack of explicit direction is a minor gap.

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