Lamoda Search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructiveness, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context: the tool renders in the operator's Chrome, mentions tier-1 discovery blocking, and explains error semantics (ParserDriftError on zero SKUs, price_rub never 0 when absent). This goes beyond the structured 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 well-structured with clear sections for return and error formats, and every sentence provides useful information. It is slightly verbose for a one-parameter search tool, but the added detail on errors and return fields earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter search tool with a full output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the key behavioral aspects: rendering environment, tier status, response shape, and failure modes. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity and the schema presence.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'query' parameter, including an example. The description does not add any new parameter semantics beyond what the schema gives, so it lands at the baseline of 3.

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 states the tool 'Search Lamoda' with a specific verb and resource, and the return format makes its role as a marketplace search tool clear. It is implicitly distinguished from sibling tools like lamoda_card by name and output shape, but it does not explicitly call out the distinction.

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?

Usage context is implied by the name ('Lamoda Search') and the fact that sibling tools cover other marketplaces, but the description provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention a complementary tool like lamoda_card for item details.

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