lazada_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that Lazada substitutes generic items instead of returning empty results, so an empty list is not a reliable 'no matches' signal. This is valuable insight into the tool's actual behavior beyond the schema. It does not mention read-only status or error handling, but the provided quirk is significant and not derivable from the schema.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and return fields, and the second provides a critical behavioral caveat. Every word earns its place; it is appropriately compact and structured for quick parsing.

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 no output schema, the description is quite complete: it enumerates the returned fields, mentions pagination and sort, and adds the currency context for country. It lacks explicit mention of error scenarios or what to do with product details (e.g., use lazada_product), but given the listed fields and behavioral quirk, an agent has enough information to call it correctly. Minor gaps prevent a 5.

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% for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning: it notes prices are in the storefront's own currency (related to the country parameter) and mentions pagination and sort, but these are already implied by the schema. No additional parameter-specific semantics are added beyond what the schema already documents.

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' and the specific resource 'a Lazada country storefront's catalog by keyword'. It lists the returned data fields (item ids, URLs, images, prices, ratings, review counts) and mentions pagination and sort, distinguishing it from category-browsing siblings like lazada_categories. The word 'free-text catalog search results' explicitly differentiates it from category-based navigation.

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 usage via 'Search by keyword', which is a clear context for when to invoke it. It does not explicitly name alternatives like lazada_category_products or lazada_home, but the focus on free-text query makes the intended use case obvious. Lacking explicit exclusions, it still provides enough guidance for an agent to select it over sibling tools for keyword-based queries.

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