web_search_articles

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the key behavioral limitation: the tool returns only result tiles (article number, description, preview image, detail URL) and not prices or availability. It does not mention pagination or result limits, but the core behavior is clearly communicated.

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 compact and efficient: two sentences cover the purpose, accepted query types, output limitations, and the alternative tool. Every sentence adds value, and the core scoping information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what the query can contain, what the results look like, and when to use another tool. It falls slightly short of a 5 because it does not mention pagination, result limits, or empty-result behavior, though these are minor 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 input schema defines only a generic query string with 0% description coverage, so the description is essential. It fully explains the semantics of the query parameter by listing the four accepted input forms: article number, EAN, manufacturer part number, and free text.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: searching articles in the webshop by article number, EAN, manufacturer part number, or free text. It also distinguishes the tool from get_price_availability by explicitly stating that it does not return prices or availability.

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 clearly states when to use this tool: searching for articles via identifiers or free text. It also names get_price_availability as the alternative for price and availability data, giving the agent direct routing guidance without ambiguity.

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