catalog_search_products

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

No annotations provided. The description uses 'Search' which implies read-only but does not explicitly state non-destructive behavior, scope handling, or outcome of unsupported filters. For a tool without annotations, more specifics are needed.

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?

Single sentence, no fluff, key features front-loaded. Every word adds value.

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?

Without an output schema, the description does not explain return format. Leaves out details on pagination limits, filter syntax, and scope values. For a search tool with complex behavior, this is insufficient.

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 has one generic 'params' object with description 'Action parameters as a JSON object'. The description adds meaningful context by naming supported aspects (filters, pagination, scope), but lacks detail on structure or format.

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 verb ('Search'), resource ('products'), and key features ('filters, pagination, and optional scope'). It implies a read operation and distinguishes from single-product retrieval (catalog_get_product). However, it lacks explicit differentiation from other search tools like cms_search_pages.

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 says nothing about when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., catalog_get_product for single product, or catalog_prepare_bulk_update for bulk updates). No guidance on prerequisites or context.

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