Search product templates

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: a fixed 25-result page size, path-based pagination rationale (HTTP cacheability), and where to find the total count. It does not, however, describe the result shape beyond the count.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what it searches, then the result count, then pagination mechanics. Every sentence carries information; the pagination sentence is dense but earns its place since the tool has no output schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of return-value disclosure and does so for the two most agent-relevant facts (25 results, a total field). Searchable-field coverage is complete. What's missing is any mention of the grouped/list alternatives, but for calling the tool correctly the definition is sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description exceeds that by expanding what the required 'query' actually matches against (name, brand, description, sizes, categories, colors, production method), which the schema's generic example ('hoodie') does not convey. The optional 'account' parameter is not elaborated in the description, but the schema documents it well.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (search product templates) and enumerates the searchable fields (name, brand, description, sizes, categories, colors, production method), which is far more specific than the title. However, it distinguishes itself from the sibling search_product_templates_paged only by describing an HTTP path variant ('/search/{query}/page/{N}') rather than naming the sibling tool, which is ambiguous in an MCP context.

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?

Gives clear guidance for the pagination case (use the paged variant, 1-indexed, use total to compute pages), but says nothing about when to prefer this over list_product_templates, search_product_templates_grouped, or the category-scoped variants. Usage is implied by the verb 'search' rather than stated.

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