search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the return format ('Returns JSON with a docs array') and a key filtering pitfall (locations are counties, not cities). It does not mention pagination, rate limits, or explicitly state read-only behavior, but 'search' implies a safe read operation.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. First sentence states purpose, second covers output format and a caveat. Every word earns its place; front-loaded and well-structured.

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?

The schema is rich, but there is no output schema, so the description should explain return values better than just 'docs array of matching ads'. It misses details about ad fields, pagination, and does not mention the relationship to list_filter_options for sub-category values. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

The input schema provides 100% description coverage for all 6 parameters, including enums and examples. The description adds only a single clarification about the locations parameter (county vs city), which is minor. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Description states 'Search Blocket for general listings' with explicit examples (electronics, furniture, clothing). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like search_cars, search_boats, and search_motorcycles. The verb 'Search' names the action and resource.

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 implies general-listing usage via 'general listings' and examples, contrasting with vehicle-specific siblings. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. The location clarification ('län, not city') provides a useful usage hint but not tool-selection guidance.

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