tokopedia_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys that the operation is public (implying no authentication is needed), returns product cards rather than raw HTML, and documents the accepted sort and filter syntax. It doesn't discuss rate limits or error behavior, but for a read-only search operation this is meaningful 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no filler. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose: stating the operation, describing the return type, documenting sort values, and explaining filter syntax.

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?

Despite having no output schema or annotations, the description explains the return type ('public Tokopedia product cards'), references how to obtain filter values, and documents sort options. It omits the page parameter's range, but the schema already covers that, so an agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 q, page, sort, and filter are already documented. The description repeats the sort enum meanings and filter format, adding only marginal clarity with the 'key:value' phrasing, which is slightly more explicit than the schema's 'key:value filter selections'.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Search Tokopedia products' and clarifies the return type as 'public Tokopedia product cards' from a 'public product-search operation.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tokopedia_product (single-product detail), tokopedia_autocomplete (suggestions), and tokopedia_search_filters (filter metadata).

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 gives clear context: use this tool to retrieve product cards for a keyword, and it directs the agent to source filter values from `/tokopedia/search/filters`. It doesn't explicitly name alternative siblings or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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