amazon_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behaviors: sponsored cards are dropped unless include_sponsored is true, price filters are encoded as rupees*100, and results are live product cards. However, it omits details like pagination behavior, rate limits, or error handling, which are relevant but less critical for a search tool with an output schema.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose. It lists output fields and then parameter specifics in a compact, scannable format. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff. It is concise yet information-dense.

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 the existence of an output schema, the description doesn't need to repeat return types, but it still lists the fields. It covers the key parameter quirks and default behavior for sponsored items. Missing are pagination limits and handling of edge cases, but for a search tool with schema support, the description is mostly complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains sort values, min_price/max_price encoding, and extra_rh provenance, which is valuable. It does not mention the 'page' parameter, leaving its semantics unclear beyond the default in the schema. Overall, it covers most parameters well but misses one, so it is above baseline but not perfect.

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-plus-resource: 'Search Amazon.in and return live product cards.' The mention of 'Amazon.in' narrows the scope, and the output fields are listed. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like search_products or amazon_search, so an agent might struggle to pick this over a similar-sounding sibling without inspecting more.

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 provides context for parameters (e.g., extra_rh from amazon_list_search_filters) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance relative to sibling search tools, so the agent must infer the appropriate context from the parameter hints.

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