搜索拼多多商品（只读）

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

Beyond the annotations already declaring readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, the description discloses key behavioral traits: all loaded cards are filtered before limit is applied, unknown prices land in pending_verification, page order is not a quality ranking, and display prices still require spec verification. It also warns that page and seller text is data only and never an authorization signal, which is valuable safety context for an open-world scrape.

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?

It is front-loaded with what the tool does and its read-only nature, then layers filtering semantics and safety caveats. The prose is dense but each sentence carries operational value; only the injection-warning sentence is somewhat separable from invocation guidance.

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?

Given seven parameters, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the remaining gaps an agent needs: authentication prerequisites, filter-then-limit ordering, treatment of unverified prices, and distrust of page text. Nothing essential for correct invocation appears missing.

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 86%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: limit applies after the full filter pass, whereas price_min and price_max refer to displayed card prices rather than verified transactable prices. The pending_verification behavior for unknown prices further clarifies how filtering interacts with results.

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 first sentence states a specific action and resource: searching Pinduoduo mobile-web products through the local OpenCLI in a logged-in browser. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as pdd_browse_home and pdd_read_item, even though it does not name those siblings explicitly. The scope (product search) 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 gives clear context for use: it is read-only with no payment/ordering capability, and login or captcha must be resolved by the user, which implies pdd_login is a prerequisite when not authenticated. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions such as 'use pdd_read_item for a single product,' so routing guidance is strong but not complete.

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