lazada_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a significant behavioral nuance: Lazada substitutes generic items instead of returning an empty result set, so an empty list is not a reliable no-match signal. It also mentions pagination and sort behavior. It doesn't state that it's read-only, but that's inherent to a search tool. The description adds value beyond the schema by revealing this non-obvious quirk.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by output details and a caveat. Every sentence earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. No wasted words.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values, which it does by listing product card fields (item ids, URLs, images, prices, ratings, review counts). It also covers pagination, sort, and the empty-result caveat. It lacks specific allowed values for sort and country, but for a search tool it covers the essential aspects an agent needs to call and interpret results.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal meaning: it confirms that q is a free-text keyword and implies that country selects the storefront (and mentions prices in local currency). However, it does not provide details on valid values for sort or country, which would be useful. The added value over the schema is marginal.

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 resource 'Lazada country storefront's catalog', and specifies it's a keyword-based search. It distinguishes from other Lazada tools by mentioning free-text search and the returned fields, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. This is a specific and unambiguous purpose.

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 this tool is for keyword-based searches on Lazada, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternative tools like lazada_category_products for category browsing. There is no exclusionary guidance, so the usage context is only implicit.

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