Target Search

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the request is proxied through a third-party scraping API with linked docs and results come back as Markdown, which tells the agent about output form and external dependency. It does not cover latency, rate limits, or failure behavior.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with the purpose and use case front-loaded, plus a docs link. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 single-shot search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the return format (Markdown) and the domain, which is everything needed to call it correctly. Minor omissions like pagination or result-count behavior keep it from 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%, so the schema already documents query, jsRender, deviceType, and deliveryZip completely. The description only mentions the keyword and the optional delivery ZIP, adding no format or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 Target for a keyword via the Decodo Web Scraping API and return Markdown results. It clearly scopes the tool to Target product search, which separates it from generic siblings like search or google_search. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from target_product, which an agent could reasonably confuse it with.

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 second sentence gives a clear use case: find products sold by the Target retail store, optionally with a delivery ZIP code. That is enough context to select it for product discovery. It stops short of exclusions or naming an alternative (e.g., use target_product for details on a specific item's page).

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