search

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses critical behaviors: limit is depth (pages walked), sort='cheap' ranks on payable price rather than Ozon's order, text search is literal about words (brand mismatch), and tile titles are seller wording that may omit the model. These are non-obvious behaviors the agent must know.

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 dense but every sentence contributes value. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds nuances in a logical order. While it is longer than typical, it is efficient because each clause covers a distinct behavioral point with no fluff. A 4 is fair because it could be tightened slightly without losing substance.

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?

The tool is complex with filters, sort semantics, and interaction with sibling tools. The description covers all necessary operational details: how to combine query and category, how to use filters, how limit behaves, and when to defer to product_details(). An output schema exists, so return format is defined. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: it explains the limit semantics (depth not page size), interprets sort values, details the filters format with a concrete example, and clarifies category slug usage. This is far above the baseline 3.

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: 'Storefront search → product tiles (sku/title/price/url)'. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by noting that a tile is not a card and that product_details() is needed for deeper data. The scope is 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. It directs agents to product_details() for variants/characteristics/photos/stock and to get_search_filters() for filters. It also explains that price narrowing is a filter, not a sort, and recommends searching the model rather than brand+model, with a concrete example. This fully routes the agent.

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