search_assortment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the return fields ('Returns name, type, price'), which is useful, and the name 'search' strongly implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explain what fields are searched against (e.g., name, SKU) or any other behavioral traits such as result ordering or potential lack of support for partial matches.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler. Every phrase provides value: the scope ('across products, variants, services and bundles') and the return fields.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's mention of 'Returns name, type, price' partly compensates. However, the tool is a unified search that likely aggregates multiple entity types, and the description does not explain how results are combined, whether pagination applies uniformly, or any search semantics (e.g., case-insensitive, field-matching). This leaves gaps for an agent to correctly predict behavior.

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%, with each parameter (limit, offset, search) having a description. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond clarifying that the search spans multiple types, but it doesn't explain how limit/offset interact or what the search query targets. Since the schema already documents the parameters, 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 'Unified search across products, variants, services and bundles' with a specific verb and resource. It also lists the return fields ('name, type, price'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_products that focus on a single type.

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 word 'Unified' implies this tool should be used when searching multiple assortments at once, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus the specific search tools (search_products, search_variants, etc.) or any exclusion criteria. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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