search_products

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry full disclosure burden, but it only states the core search scope. It does not describe filtering behavior, defaults, rate limits, or what happens with invalid or empty results. The operation is likely read-only, which lowers risk, but behavioral detail beyond the bare action is missing.

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, scannable sentence with no filler, and the retailer scope is front-loaded. It is concise, though it could have used the available space to add parameter guidance without harming readability.

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?

With four parameters, no annotations, and zero schema property descriptions, this definition is too thin for an agent to call optimally. The output schema covers return values, but parameter semantics, defaults, and the relationship to sibling tools such as compare_price or get_product are not addressed.

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. It adds the retailer list inline, which aligns with the retailer parameter, and search implies the query parameter. However, max_price and max_results semantics are left entirely to the schema, with no explanation of how filtering or result limiting actually behaves.

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 verb and resource: searching products, with a specific scope across Czech DIY retailers and even lists the allowed retailer values. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_product and list_stores by emphasizing a cross-retailer product search, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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 phrase 'search products across Czech DIY retailers' implies that this tool is for querying product availability across those retail chains. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and alternatives like get_product, get_stock, or compare_price are not mentioned, so the agent must infer the intended use case from sibling names.

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