Normalized DuckDuckGo shopping results: title, brand, merchant, description, price, rating, and review count, plus total page count. Sponsored/ad-funded product listings, not organic content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | ||
| region | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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 genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: results are sponsored/ad-funded rather than organic, warning the agent about commercial bias in the returned listings.
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 tightly packed sentences with zero filler, and the resource is front-loaded ahead of the sponsored-content caveat. Every clause earns its place.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile; the field list and sponsored-content note round it out. The only real gap is the undocumented input parameters for a tool whose schema provides no descriptions.
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 carry the burden of explaining q and region. Instead it describes only output fields, saying nothing about the required query parameter or what region does, leaving both input parameters undocumented.
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 states a specific resource (DuckDuckGo shopping results) and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It differentiates from organic content ('Sponsored/ad-funded product listings, not organic content'), but does not name the sibling search tool (duckduckgo_search) it contrasts with, and there is no explicit verb.
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: the note that results are sponsored 'not organic content' hints that this tool is for commercial product listings while duckduckgo_search handles organic web results, but no alternative is named and no explicit when-to-use condition is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
