wc_products_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing. It implies a read-only search, but says nothing about return volume, pagination behavior, result ordering, or required permissions.

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?

A single short sentence with no wasted words and the resource stated up front. It is concise, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication of needed detail.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the definition is inadequate. An agent cannot determine what results to expect, how to page through them, or how this differs from sibling search tools.

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 all three parameters (page, search, per_page), and the description mentions none of them. 'Search' hints at a query term, but pagination semantics for page/per_page go entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 verb ('Search') and resource ('WooCommerce products'), which is better than a pure tautology. However, it does not distinguish this tool from its many siblings such as wc_orders_search, wp_posts_search, or wc_get_product, leaving the agent to infer scope from the name alone.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wc_get_product (single lookup) or the other wc_*_search tools. The word 'Search' implies a browsing/lookup use case, but no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated.

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