products_search

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 only states that it searches products with filters; it does not disclose pagination behavior, sorting defaults, whether the operation is read-only, rate limits, or any side effects. This is minimal behavioral disclosure for a search operation that could significantly impact the agent's expectations.

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 is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place: the verb, the resource, the search mode, and the optional filters. There is zero waste or 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?

The tool has six parameters with no output schema, and the description omits critical context such as the fact that 'provider' is a required parameter (only query is also required). The 'optional' wording only mentions price and status, potentially misleading the agent into thinking all filters are optional when provider is not. It also fails to mention return format or any limitations. This is a notable gap for a moderately complex search tool.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents all six parameters, including their types, defaults, and descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is already present, mentioning price and status filters that are already in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'Busca' (search) with the resource 'productos' and specifies the search mode: free text with optional price and status filters. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like products_list (which lists all products) and products_get (which retrieves by ID). The purpose is immediately clear and actionable.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need to search products by free text and optionally filter by price or status. It provides clear context, though it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it. The 'optional' wording gives guidance on when filters are applicable.

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