List / search products

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are paged and include price and stock, but it omits that status defaults to 'publish' (a non-obvious scoping behavior that silently hides drafts/pending items) and says nothing about total counts or pagination limits.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the search capability and followed by the return shape. No filler, no repetition of the title, nothing that could be cut.

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 9-parameter, zero-required, low-schema-coverage listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose and rough return shape but leaves the sort/pagination parameters and the default status filter unexplained. An agent could call it, but would likely miss that only published products return by default.

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 only 22% across 9 parameters, so the description has to compensate, and it does partially by naming the filterable dimensions that map to search, sku, status, category and stock_status. However it adds no meaning for page, per_page, order, orderby, nor the enum semantics or the default of 'publish' for status.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb (search) and resource (catalogue) and enumerates the filter axes: text, SKU, status, category, stock status. The second sentence adds the return shape (a page of products with price and stock). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_product or low_stock_products, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'search' – an agent can infer this is the browsing/listing tool versus the single-item get_product, but the description never says so. There is no statement of when to prefer low_stock_products or get_product, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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