wafle_products_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds 'lightweight' and 'optimized for autocomplete' as performance context, but doesn't disclose return format, pagination, or other behavioral details, which is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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 core function and then adds the comparative context with wafle_products_list. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 straightforward search tool with read-only annotations and schema coverage for most parameters, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the tool's purpose, its relationship to a sibling, and the optimization context. The lack of output schema and return details is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 provides descriptions for q and slug, leaving limit undocumented. The description doesn't add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, and it doesn't compensate for the missing limit semantics. With 67% schema coverage, a 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 performs a 'lightweight search of products by name/sku', with a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes from sibling wafle_products_list by noting it's equivalent but optimized for autocomplete, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 explicitly names wafle_products_list as an alternative and indicates this tool is optimized for autocomplete, giving a clear use case. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or provide exclusions, stopping short of full guidance.

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