Search Aliexpress

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It specifies the exact output fields, explains that prices and titles follow the configured market (Germany/EUR default), and implies a read-only search operation. It doesn't cover error or no-results behavior, but for a listing search the disclosed behavior is solid.

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?

Four compact sentences cover the action, return shape, market configuration, and next-step routing. Every sentence earns its place, and the most decision-relevant facts are front-loaded.

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?

Between the description and the complete input schema, an agent knows what results look like, how paging and filters work, and when to escalate to the sibling. The only small weakness is that some behavior, such as pagination defaults and the deprecated `max_results` alias, is left entirely to the schema rather than reinforced in the description.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful market context that affects how price parameters are interpreted, but it does not add meaning to page, sort, limit, or query beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search AliExpress product listings by keyword.' It then enumerates the return fields, distinguishing this list-level tool from get_aliexpress_product, which is referenced for full product details.

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 clearly scopes the tool to keyword-based listing searches and explicitly routes deeper needs to get_aliexpress_product ('Pass a product's `id` to `get_aliexpress_product` for full details'). It does not list when not to use this tool, but the alternative is named and the decision boundary is obvious.

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