ikea_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does well: it reveals the response shape, explains that an IKEA item number resolves as a single result, and explicitly states that an empty products list with zero total is a valid no-results response. It doesn't cover every edge case like invalid country codes or pagination, but it is far beyond a minimal statement.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action and resource, the second lists return fields, and the final sentence covers key parameter behaviors and edge-case response. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description compensates by naming the normalized return fields and the no-results convention. It also covers q semantics, country/language selection, and defaults. It could add a note about size defaults or whether results are paginated, but for a search tool of this complexity it is largely 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?

The input schema already documents all four parameters at 100% coverage, placing this at baseline 3. The description adds genuine value by explaining the q parameter's special behavior (item number resolves as single result) and specifying country/language defaults (us/en), enriching the semantics for two of the four parameters.

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 tool searches IKEA products and lists the normalized fields it returns (name, price, rating, images, colors, variant data). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ikea_product (detail lookup), ikea_suggest (autocomplete), and ikea_availability (stock checks), even without naming them explicitly.

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 implies when to use the tool — when searching IKEA products by free text or item number — and provides useful input context about country/language defaults. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using ikea_product for full product details, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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