search_products

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

The annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the bar for additional disclosure is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: missing fields are omitted, in_stock_qty 0 means sold out, total_found and has_more have specific meanings, and search prices are from the result feed and should be confirmed with get_product. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core behavior, then adds only high-value detail about result semantics and the companion get_product tool. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure makes the most important facts easy to find.

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?

For a read-only search tool, this description is complete: it explains the search behavior, the meaning of key result fields, pagination semantics, missing-data behavior, and the price-feed caveat. Together with the rich input schema and annotations, an agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results appropriately.

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 100%, and the input schema already explains query, sort, page, limit, price_min, and price_max clearly. The description adds only a high-level mention of sorting and a price window, which does not materially enrich parameter understanding beyond the schema. This matches the baseline expected for full schema coverage.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a search against Wildberries with real pages, sorting, and a price window, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_product. The return fields are enumerated, so an agent knows exactly what kind of results to expect. This goes well beyond the tool name.

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 positions this tool for product discovery and explicitly points to get_product for confirming finalists, which gives an agent a concrete routing cue. It does not exhaustively list when not to use it versus get_price_history, get_reviews, or compare_products, but the context is still clear and useful.

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