Search Woolworths products by query and limit results to retrieve product details and prices for comparison.
Search for products at Woolworths.
Args:
query: The product search query.
limit: Maximum number of products to return.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions searching but doesn't describe what the search returns (e.g., product details, pricing, availability), whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
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 appropriately sized with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter details. It's front-loaded with the main function and uses a structured format for parameters, though the 'Args' section could be integrated more smoothly into the narrative flow.
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 complexity of a product search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return values look like (e.g., product list format), error handling, or contextual constraints like availability by region, making it inadequate for full understanding.
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?
The description includes an 'Args' section that lists and briefly describes both parameters ('query' and 'limit'), adding meaning beyond the input schema which has 0% description coverage. However, it doesn't provide details like query syntax examples, limit constraints, or default behavior, leaving some semantic gaps.
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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('products at Woolworths'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'get_coles_products' beyond the brand name, which is implied but not stated as a distinguishing factor.
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. There's no mention of the sibling tool 'get_coles_products' or any context about when Woolworths-specific searches are appropriate versus other product search options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.