tokopedia_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose that this is a public operation and that it returns product cards, which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention pagination limits (page 1-5 is in the schema, not the description), rate limits, or what happens when no results are found. The description adds some context but not rich behavioral detail.

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?

Three sentences, all dense with useful information. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the sort/filter details are packed efficiently. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage: keyword, sort options, filter format, and where to get filter values. It doesn't describe the return structure, but since there's no output schema, a brief note on what a 'product card' contains could help. Still, the description is largely complete for an agent to invoke it 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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by explaining the sort codes (3, 4, 5, 9, 23) and the filter format ('key:value' repeated), which goes beyond the schema's terse descriptions. It also points to /tokopedia/search/filters for valid filter values. This is meaningful added semantics.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('Tokopedia products'), and the exact source ('Tokopedia's public product-search operation'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tokopedia_autocomplete, tokopedia_category, and tokopedia_search_filters by clarifying it returns product cards for a keyword. The scope is unambiguous.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when searching Tokopedia products by keyword. It also references /tokopedia/search/filters for filter values, which is a useful pointer to a sibling tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., when you need autocomplete suggestions or category browsing), 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.