search_product

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

The readOnlyHint annotation covers the no-side-effects aspect, and the description adds the supported search fields. However, it does not disclose whether matching is exact, partial, case-sensitive, or paginated. With the annotation, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It names the action, resource, and search keys in minimal words.

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 one-parameter read-only search with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could mention match behavior or ordering, but that is not essential for initial tool selection.

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 100%: the query parameter is already described as 'product name, barcode, or SKU'. The tool description repeats the same information without adding detail like format constraints, wildcards, or examples.

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 action ('Search'), the resource ('products in Chirak'), and the search keys ('name, SKU code, or barcode'). It distinguishes this from siblings like get_inventory or product mutations by focusing exclusively on text-based search.

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 conveys the core usage: look up products by name, SKU, or barcode. It does not explicitly compare against get_inventory or other product tools, so an agent must infer the boundary between searching and listing inventory.

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