Search product templates grouped by product family

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: results are collapsed across production methods into a variants list, the page size is fixed at 25, and pagination is path-based for cacheability. It stops short of describing error handling or the account parameter's auth implications.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and grouping semantics in the first two sentences, then pagination. The trailing 'Pagination is path-based for HTTP cacheability' is a mild rationale rather than an instruction, but it is brief and does not bloat the definition.

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 usefully sketches the return shape (grouped results plus a variants list) and the 25-item page limit, which is what an agent needs to handle results. Deductions for not covering the account parameter's effect or failure modes.

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% and both parameters are documented there (query with example, account with an explicit 'not an authorization proof' clarification), so the schema carries the semantic load. The description adds nothing about query formatting or the account parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (search), resource (product templates), and the defining behavior (group by product family / libraryId), which distinguishes it from search_product_templates and search_product_templates_paged. The collapsing rule (same physical item, different production methods) makes the tool's identity unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to the /search-grouped/{query}/page/{N} variant for pagination and explains the fixed 25-result page, which is actionable when-vs-what guidance. It does not, however, state when to prefer this grouped search over the flat search_product_templates or list_product_templates siblings.

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