hunt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: deduplication by Marktplaats listing ID, the found_by provenance list, and hard limits (max 20 searches, max 25 listings per search). It does not clarify whether the hunt is persisted or has side effects (the existence of save_hunt/run_hunt makes this ambiguity meaningful), nor does it state read-only status or request cost.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then example, then hard limits as a scannable list; each block earns its place. Slightly verbose around the example/limits but nothing is filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return structure needn't be explained, and the description covers the nested searches argument and result semantics (dedup, found_by) adequately. The remaining gap is the unclear relationship to save_hunt/run_hunt, which an agent needs in order to choose correctly among these siblings.

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, and it does well for the complex searches parameter: it explains that each entry is a dict of search_listings arguments plus an optional label, and provides a concrete two-element example. The per_search_limit parameter is not named directly, though the stated 25-listing cap gives implied bounds on it.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Run several complementary Marktplaats searches as one bounded hunt,' which distinguishes it from the single-search sibling search_listings. However, it never differentiates itself from run_hunt or save_hunt, leaving an agent to guess how 'hunt' relates to those near-identical siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by 'several complementary searches as one bounded hunt' and the multi-search example, so an agent can infer it is for batching related queries. But there is no explicit when-to-use rule and no named alternative (e.g., why pick this over run_hunt or individual search_listings calls), which matters given the crowded hunt-related sibling set.

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