search_listings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The description doesn't disclose pagination limits, result counts returned, rate limits, whether location matching is fuzzy, or how sorting interacts with relevance. For a search tool, behavior around defaults and result set breadth would be valuable context.

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 a single focused sentence that lists the key optional dimensions (location, pricing, sorting, page). It's concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Could mention a typical example but isn't padded with filler.

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?

For a search tool with one required param and no output schema, the description is adequate but could be more complete. There's no mention of result count limits, whether the location parameter supports abbreviations, or guidance on combining filters. The tool is moderately complex (6 optional params) but the schema covers their individual semantics well enough.

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 documents all 6 parameters well. The description adds the default sorting behavior (relevance/default) which is a marginal bonus, but otherwise the parameters are fully self-documenting in the schema. Baseline 3 is 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 clearly states the verb (search), resource (classified product listings on OLX India), and scope (with location, pricing, sorting, and page parameters). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_listing_details' by the search-action vs. detail-retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative.

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 implied by the purpose - searching for listings - and the optional parameters describe typical use cases. However, there's no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. get_listing_details (e.g., 'use this to discover listings, then get_listing_details for a specific one'). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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