ecommerce_product_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'search', which implies a read-only operation, but provides no details on return format, pagination, filtering behavior, limits, or side effects. The agent cannot predict what happens when called successfully or what the response looks like.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is efficient with words and avoids irrelevant details, though it may be too sparse to be fully useful. For a simple search tool, this length is acceptable.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema, no annotations, and unknown return behavior, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the search returns (list of products? SKUs? metadata?), how results are ordered, or any constraints. For a tool that searches across multiple platforms, more context is needed.

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% and the description adds no explanation of the parameters. It does not clarify what 'query' means or the significance of the 'platform' enum values. The schema already lists the enum, but the description fails to enrich understanding, leaving agents to guess parameter semantics.

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 states a clear verb ('search') and resource ('products and SKUs from the store's backend system'). It specifies the domain and the object of the search, making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ecommerce_get_store_metrics or ecommerce_match_variants, though none are direct search competitors.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention typical scenarios, prerequisites (like needing a platform value), or when other search-like tools would be more appropriate. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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