search_products

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: real pages, site sort orders, price window, page size differences (8 vs 16 tiles), ad-heavy first page on popular sort, and the 'one request per call' constraint. This gives the agent a much richer behavioral model without contradicting the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in one clear sentence, then provides a structured list of output fields. The field list is long but each item is relevant and not redundant; overall it is efficient without being terse.

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 search tool with six parameters and an output schema, the description covers everything needed: it clarifies the search behaves like the real site, specifies the result fields, notes the one-request-per-call limit, and the schema already documents pagination and sort values. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%: every parameter (page, sort, price_max/min, include_sponsored, query) already has a clear description in the schema. The tool description does not add further parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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-resource pair ('Search Yandex Market') and a clear scope ('like the site'), then enumerates the exact fields each item returns (ids, prices, seller, sponsored flag, etc.), making it easy to distinguish from the sibling get_product or get_offers tools.

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?

It clearly describes what the tool does and offers internal tips (e.g., using price_asc with price windows for depth, and noting that popular page 1 is ad-heavy), but it never explicitly contrasts this tool against siblings like get_product or get_offers. The context makes the intended use clear without formal exclusions.

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