OneFindMe

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: what a result contains (price, rating, order count, store, link), that prices are delivery-country specific, and that links are affiliate links. This affiliate disclosure is a notable transparency win.

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?

Front-loaded with the core verb and resource, then the multilingual capability, then the affiliate/provenance note. Every clause earns its place: the language flexibility, delivery-country pricing, and affiliate disclosure are all decision-relevant.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and the delivery-country pricing semantics, and the schema bounds max_results. It stops short of covering behavior for empty result sets or failure modes, but for a straightforward search tool this is close to complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the schema already documents all seven parameters including examples. The description still adds real semantic meaning for the 'country' parameter by explaining that prices are quoted for delivery to that country, which the schema does not state.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Search AliExpress for products') and immediately adds the distinguishing scope: queries can be in the shopper's own language, no English product name required. An agent knows exactly what this tool does and what input shape it expects.

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 clearly frames when to use it — pass the shopper's natural-language query in any language rather than translating to English product names, and prices reflect delivery to the given country. There are no sibling tools to differentiate from and no explicit exclusions, so 4 rather than 5.

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