Search Products

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations: budgets are IRR not toman, sorting is per market/page rather than global, page sizes/totals are upstream, errors are isolated per market, and location is unused by the current adapter. These are exactly the non-obvious traits an agent needs.

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?

Eight short, front-loaded statements with no filler; the most decision-critical facts (market scoping, category_id sourcing, query/category behavior) come first. Slightly list-like but every sentence carries operational value.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers the market model, currency, sorting scope, error isolation, and the inert location parameter. Minor gaps remain around sort/filter semantics.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies query/category_id interplay, currency for price bounds, markets defaulting to all configured, and that location is inert. However it does not explain sort enum values, page bounds, or the filters structure.

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 and resource ('Search products') and immediately scopes the unit of work ('one native page per market'), which an agent can act on. It also names siblings (list_categories, autocomplete) as the source of category_id, helping distinguish its role.

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 tells the agent what inputs to supply ('query text, category_id, or both; category alone browses that category') and where to get category_id. Lacks explicit when-to-use-this-vs-get_products_batch routing, but the input-selection guidance is clear and actionable.

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