pp_search_products_by_name

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine capability context beyond them: fewer filters and no sorting relative to pp_search. It does not describe pagination behavior, but with annotations carrying the safety burden this is a solid addition.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the core behavior front-loaded and the deprecation-style guidance following immediately.

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 simple four-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers purpose and routing adequately. It leaves pagination/return shape unstated, which is a minor gap given the schema fields are self-explanatory.

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 coverage is 75%, so page, page_size and retailer are already documented in the schema. The description's 'term inside the URL path' adds a hint about how query is used but nothing beyond what the schema provides for the other three parameters. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does most of the work.

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 (search) and resource (products), plus a precise mechanism ('term inside the URL path'). It also names the sibling pp_search and how this differs, so the agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Prefer `pp_search` for new work,' and characterizes this tool as the older sibling with fewer filters and no sorting. Both the when-to-use and the when-not-to-use conditions are stated.

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