search_products

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the behavioral burden and reveals important non-obvious facts: the server ignores sort and price-range parameters, so these must be applied client-side to pages × 21 items. It also explains in_stock_only as inventory in the current store. It lacks return-format and error/rate-limit detail, but the main caveats are disclosed.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and organized by parameter groups. Every sentence adds operational value, such as examples of acceptable query and facet values.

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 complex 11-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description provides most needed context: how to form queries, how to pass facets, current-store semantics, and server-side parameter behavior. The main gaps are the undocumented 'limit' parameter and the absence of any return-value description, which would be useful since no output schema is provided.

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 0%, and the description compensates by explaining query as free text or article, the source and exact format of facet values, and the ignored effect of sort and price range. However, the 'limit' parameter is not described, leaving one of eleven parameters semantically uncovered.

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 searches products in the WinLab catalog and defines query as free text or article number, so the core operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like suggest or product_details, though the action is evident.

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 implies when to use the tool for product search and points to list_filters as the source of exact facet values. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, nor does it name alternatives such as suggest or product_details for related lookup needs.

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