Search products

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

Annotations already establish the tool as read-only, idempotent, and safe. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond these hints: the default regional settings (US/en_US) and the normalization of nutrition data per 100 g/ml. This helps the agent anticipate the output format and the effect of locale/country overrides, which is not covered by the annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It consists of two efficient sentences, with no redundant words or repetition of schema details. Every sentence provides substantive information about default behavior and data normalization.

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?

Despite having an output schema and strong annotations, the description is incomplete for a tool with 5 parameters. It does not explain how to use the 'query', 'limit', or 'sex' parameters, which are crucial for executing searches. The normalization and locale defaults are covered, but the overall usage context is under-specified, making it insufficient for an agent to understand all capabilities and constraints.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It clarifies the 'countries' and 'locales' parameters via 'country/locale overrides', but completely omits the purpose or usage of 'query', 'limit', and 'sex'. The description adds partial meaning but fails to cover the majority of the parameters, leaving the agent without essential information for constructing a valid request.

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 uses a specific verb ('Searches') with a clear resource ('YAZIO products'), and adds important scope details (defaults to US/en_US, accepts overrides, normalized nutrition). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_product and get_nutrition_trends, which imply more targeted retrieval or analysis.

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 does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_product. It implies a search use case but lacks clear context about prerequisites, exclusions, or when the overrides are necessary. No alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate usage scenario.

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