search.items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a meaningful trait: browser-based execution designed to resist risk control. However, it does not mention authentication or browser session prerequisites, rate limits, or failure/blocking behavior, which are relevant for a browser-path tool.

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 a single compact sentence with the core operation front-loaded and a useful qualifier in parentheses. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant 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?

Although the output schema covers return values, the description leaves filter_blacklist semantics and auth/session prerequisites unstated. Given the presence of many auth-related sibling tools, the lack of guidance about required login or browser state is a notable completeness gap.

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 0%, and the description does not explain 'limit' or the ambiguous 'filter_blacklist' parameter. Only the 'query' parameter's role is inferable from the tool's name and description, so the definition fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 clear verb and resource: 'search Xianyu items.' The parenthetical 'browser path, anti-risk-control' adds distinguishing implementation context, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative to contrast against.

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 'browser path, anti-risk-control' hint implies this tool is intended for situations where risk control is a concern, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. Usage context is implied rather than directed.

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