search_market

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

The description adds behavioral context (reading from Xianyu, collecting results) which aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not disclose additional traits like rate limits or result ordering, but the annotation covers the safety profile.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence stating purpose, followed by parameter definitions. No unnecessary words; each part is informative.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool and the presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and use case. Minor details like pagination or sorting are missing but not critical for a basic search tool.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains both parameters: keyword (required, non-empty) and max_results (default 20). This provides necessary semantics beyond the schema, though could include range or units for max_results.

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 states the tool's purpose: search for keywords on Xianyu and collect results (title, price, link) for competitor research and pricing reference. It uses specific verbs and resources, and is distinct from sibling 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?

The description mentions usage for competitor research and pricing reference, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare with alternatives. However, given the sibling tools, the context is clear.

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