google_shopping

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully states that results include title, price, seller, rating, and delivery info, but it omits operational details such as pagination, result limits, authentication needs, or rate limits. This is adequate but incomplete for a search endpoint.

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 with no wasted words. The core purpose and return content are front-loaded, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 simple 3-parameter schema and the absence of an output schema, the description provides a useful return-field overview and clear purpose. It is nearly complete, though it could mention pagination or result-count behavior to fully support invocation.

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 schema already documents q, gl, and include_links thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 verb and resource: 'Search Google Shopping via SearchApi.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like google_search, google_jobs, and youtube_search by naming the Shopping vertical. It also lists the returned product fields, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not mention alternatives such as google_search for general queries. It only implies usage through the phrase 'Search Google Shopping,' which is the bare minimum.

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