browse_products

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context beyond basic functionality: it specifies the catalog scope ('on the402.ai'), types of goods sold ('by providers'), and authentication requirements ('No authentication required'). However, it does not mention rate limits, pagination behavior, or error handling, leaving some gaps.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with three concise sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core purpose, the second elaborates on content and scope, and the third covers search support and authentication. 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (search functionality with 3 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, scope, content types, search support, and authentication, but lacks details on return values, error cases, or pagination behavior, which would be helpful for an agent to use it effectively.

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 documents all parameters (query, limit, offset) with descriptions. The description adds marginal value by implying keyword search functionality ('Supports keyword search'), but does not provide additional syntax, format details, or constraints beyond what the schema specifies. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose with specific verb ('Search') and resource ('digital product catalog on the402.ai'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the types of content (downloadable files, datasets, templates, digital goods) and the catalog scope. It avoids tautology by providing details beyond the name 'browse_products'.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Search the digital product catalog... Supports keyword search'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. It implies usage for catalog searches without specifying prerequisites like authentication (stated as 'No authentication required'), but lacks explicit exclusions or sibling comparisons.

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