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, and it delivers the key traits: anonymous access, read-only operation, default region, and the meaning of prices (asking price vs. total_with_buyer_protection which adds the buyer fee, shipping excluded). It omits rate limits and pagination depth limits beyond the per_page cap, which keeps it from a 5.

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-loaded one-line summary, then a use-case sentence, then a structured Args block. Every line adds information not present in the schema; nothing is redundant filler despite the length.

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 values needn't be described, and the description still adds fee/pricing interpretation on top. All parameters, defaults, region scope, and access model are covered — nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate entirely, and it does: every one of the six parameters is documented with type meaning, units (EUR), defaults, the full sort enum with behavioral caveats, and the per_page max of 96. The note that 'cheap' pulls in loosely related listings is genuinely non-obvious semantics an agent could not infer from the schema.

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 and resource ('search second-hand listings on Vinted') plus scope qualifiers: Portugal by default, anonymous, read-only. There are no sibling tools to differentiate from, so it stops just short of the top mark, but an agent knows exactly what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a concrete use case ("what does a used X go for on Vinted?" price research) and an explicit routing rule for a common sub-intent: for 'the cheapest X', prefer relevance with price_max over sort='cheap'. No when-not-to-use guidance, but with no siblings there is little to exclude.

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