search_product

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return fields (label, price, price per kilo/liter, Nutri-Score, availability, and id) and references the configured store, which implies a dependency on store configuration. However, it does not mention error behavior, pagination, or any rate limits, so it is only partially transparent.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the main action and lists key return fields without unnecessary detail. It does not repeat what the schema already provides.

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 search tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It lists the return fields and mentions the store context, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role and basic behavior. It lacks minor details like sorting or limits, but those are not critical for a simple search.

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 describes the 'query' parameter with an example, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: searching for products in the Leclerc Drive catalog of the configured store. It specifies the resource ('produits dans le catalogue Leclerc Drive') and verb ('Recherche'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on search rather than cart operations or store management.

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 context by noting the search returns an 'id à utiliser pour add_to_cart', guiding when to use this tool (before adding items). It does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools and the described return fields make the use case clear.

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