search_products

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add a non-obvious behavioral requirement: 'applied_filters_markdown' must be shown verbatim ahead of the answer. That is real added context, but nothing is said about how filters interact or what happens when conditions conflict.

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: the operational purpose is front-loaded and the display instruction follows. Every clause carries information and there is no padding, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing detail noted elsewhere.

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 9-parameter tool with deeply nested filter objects and no parameter descriptions, the description is far too thin; it does not explain how the filter/sort structures relate to the three stated dimensions. The existence of an output schema excuses it from describing return values, but the input side remains largely opaque.

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% across 9 parameters, several of which are complex nested objects (SortSpec, OfferFilter, ObjectiveFilter, ExperienceTopic, ExperienceCondition). The phrase '객관·판매·리뷰' loosely hints at the three filter families but leaves sort, limit, category, user_request, and interpretation_notes completely unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific action (filter and sort) over a meaningful scope ('전체 조건을 받아' – accepting all conditions) broken into three dimensions: objective, sales, and review. This is more than a restatement of the name. However, it never names the sibling tools it must be distinguished from (e.g., compare_products, get_product_details), so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus search_product_docs, compare_products, or get_product_details, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only directional cue is an output-formatting instruction, not selection guidance. An agent gets no routing help.

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